Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=192.65.245.34McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:25:34ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_14_Questions/Comments328--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T13:05:09Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Mariah Burton Nelson, “Sex and Sports” – 1994 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching comments ==<br />
<br />
I just have a general comment. '''It was surprising to me how recent some of these essays were dated. I guess I never thought of this time period as very relevant or active for women's rights... because I guess it is!''' I mean I would definitely describe myself as a feminists, but I guess I kind of feel that in this day and age... '''doesn't every women in my age bracket feel like a feminist? Are there actually people in the younger generation today that are advocating for women to be defined by their role of mother and that is it?''' I think it is great if a women chooses to stay home with her family, but really i just think ti is great if a women chooses whatever makes her happy, no matter what that is. Do all people in this generation not feel this way?- Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
To answer Cat's question, no not everyone in this generation feels that way. There are still debutants in the South who go to school to find a husband and take classes to be good housewives. '''I also had some girls on my floor freshman year who were forming a housewives club to learn how to cook and clean and be good housewives.''' - Chrisitne W.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----------------------------------<br />
MP, 459-469, 506-524<br />
<br />
== Roe v. Wade Decision (both Blackmun’s majority ruling and White’s dissent). ==<br />
I'll take the first whack, since nobody else is touching this yet. First let me say, that a woman's body is her own and should be fully respected. Justice Blackmun mentions the 14th Amendment not recognizing a fetus as a person. This is technically and legally correct. That being said, technology now gives us more information, which perhaps can make choices for women even more difficult. The abortion argument has centered, for quite some time, on one question: When does life begin? At conception, when a fetus is considered viable (22-24 weeks approximately) or at full term. This has been the subject of much debate. The most difficult part of the equation is the inherent EMOTION that will always be involved in this debate, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. ''' A big part ot the problem also is the extreme rhetoric used by both sides''' - example. - Pro-lifers screaming "baby Killers" at Planned Parenhood workers; Pro-choice women insisting that their bodies are essentially theirs and theirs alone, even though a 20 week old fetus is kicking her belly, and a 30 week old fetus can make her foot or hand visible on a mother's belly! Unfortunately, common sense in America rarely prevails. RU 486 is still a restricted drug. A pregnancy terminated in the first several weeks, I have no moral qualms with. However, I have to confess to this: I have attended over a dozen fetal ultrasound sessions with my wife, at least two for each of my children, the last many because of a prenatal problem. As of our last child (2006), Ultrasound technology could detect a visible FETAL HEARTBEAT at six to seven weeks gestation. The heartrate is over 150 beats per minute, and resembles a very quickly twinkling star, or almost like a twinkle light on a Christmas tree. Sorry to get emotional, but at this point, this IS A LIFE. At least as far as my wife and I were concerned, we were then charged with the responsiblity of protecting that life however we could. For my wife, it meant taking good care of herself and refraining from alcohol and reducing caffeine intake. For me, it meant stepping up the pace on my end with housework, taking out the cat litter all the time (toxic for pregnant women) and being patient when crying jags and nesting urges kicked in for my better half. But it was all worth it! - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Phil on the first several weeks part. At that point, the fetus is really nothing but a bunch of dividing cells. '''I honestly don't know how I feel about abortion.''' I think that it is important to be able to allow women who are fatally at risk to be able to have them, but I have some issues with the way some people use and treat abortion. The main problem that I have is when people use it as a form of birth control. When my mother first started working as a nurse, a woman called for a nurse to help her out of the bathroom. She assisted the lady, and then went back to flush the toilet for her. There was a bloody fetus in the toilet bowl. Needless to say, my mother freaked out. The nurses who had been there longer told her that that woman comes in every several months and has an abortion, and that she used it as birth control. Now, I know that this is not the norm, or at least I hope not, but instead of killing the child, take the care to prevent its conception first. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
There are no easy answers to this topic, but I don't think that one person has the right to dictate to another, in this case a woman, what she can or cannot do with her body. The original anti-abortion laws were written and maintained by men. Here comes a women's group saying that they have a right to control what happens with their bodies, and the Supreme Court validated that right with Roe vs. Wade. For every story where abortion seems inappropriate, there is probably a story of justification. Why do people think that reversing Roe vs. Wade will stop abortion? If you remember, women were aborting long before the decision at the risk of their health and life. If the decision is ever reversed, I imagine women will still seek out abortions.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Lindsey Van Gelder reports on “Women vs. the NY Times” in Ms. in 1978. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Connaught Marshner explains what social conservatives really want, 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I found this essay really interesting. '''I was shocked by how much this women feared divorce and female independence.''' Did she honestly think that women that were still "fulfilled" without a man around and raised children without a man in the house were actually ruining society? This was written in 1988!! - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat, Marshner's opinions seem somewhat outdated today. But she also seems to be a product of Reagan and many popular opinion shifts of the 1980s. I think the increase in divorce rate as well as the family's decrease of importance "functions once served by the family are now provided by the government" brought about the resurfacing of issues like family and women's obligation to making the home a stable environment. '''I think that the issue of divorce and the effect it has on a single mother is still an issue today. But Marshner is very narrow minded by stating that traditional values work best. She is stuck in the white middle class ideal and fails to acknowledge that many successful families no longer operate by traditional manner.''' -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 ==<br />
<br />
'''Planned Parenthood v Casey seems to be probably the most complicated court case ever decided.''' I read the whole decision, not just the part in the textbook (and I've read outside readings on it), and it seems like '''Casey concludes two things, and then applies them in different ways. 1) Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was a correct decision, but because of ''stare decisis,'' the "rule" that the Court has to stick with what it said before; and, 2) some regulations on abortion are fine, but when they pose an undue burden to abortion they are illegal.<br />
I won't take a stance on abortion, but the ''stare decisis'' rational seems crazy to me.''' It seems like a few judges (including or limited to Blackmum) decided that Roe was correct, and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter decided that Roe was wrong, but the Court should uphold it lest there seem to be instability in the law. Casey acknowledges "the interest of the State in the protection of potential life" which seems to be a repudiation of Roe on all but technical grounds. It seems unjust to me to uphold a law purely because the Supreme Court isn't allowed to admit it was wrong.<br />
The undue burden standard seems somewhat rational to me, but only as a political compromise which the Court isn't supposed to do. In reading PP v Casey I can't find a single legal rationale for the undue burden standard, it seems completely arbitrary. It also seems like in many instances the Court is making law, not adjudicating it, and making it in a very vague fashion. The Court decided requirements for parental consent, informed decision, and 24 hour waiting periods were undue burdens, but spousal notification was not. Although I agree very much with at least the rational behind the last one, this sounds like something that should be debated by elected officials, not lifetime judges. <br />
Also, I think the subdecision on parental consent proves the arbitrariness of the entire undue burden standard. If parents have a complete yes/no veto option over whether an abortion can happen, it seems like that's an undue burden, yet the Court ruled it was not. The legal argument that sometimes parents' rights come before some rights doesn't work, because if that's true than the right to abortion isn't ''fundamental,'' and Roe should have been overturned. Something is wrong with the legal system when justices form alliances to carve out politically biased, legally contradictory chunks of law.<br />
'''I guess I don't understand why Roe v. Wade attracts so much attention these days, it seems like PP v Casey is much more relevant now, and a much more controversial (and legally questionable) decision.''' -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Asma Gull Hasan, Pakistani-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
I learned a lot this week in the reading about "First- and Second- Generation Immigrant Women Speak of Living Inbetween Cultures," particularly about Asma Gull Hasan. I learned a great deal about the Muslim culture from her reading that I had only assumed before from the skewed material I've seen from the news. I did not realize that the Qur'an gave women that kind of status and honored them as much as they did. It really was an interesting reading and a learning experience at the same time! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kyoko Mori, Japanese-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jamala McFadden’s Story of 1990s Welfare Assistance, 2002 ==<br />
This is a "feel good story". I love hearing about women beating the odds,for an education, with children no less. '''Welfare made a difference in McFadden's life because she had drive and ambition and used government assistance to better her life. This is what assistance if for. Too often we hear of people misusing welfare therefore giving a stereotype to its recipients.''' McFadden spoke of the changes made in the welfare system while she was still in college. She said she was lucky to be "grandfathered" in. I do feel that daycare assistance should be offered to women attending college. To me, this would be money better spent than on women who have a minimum wage jobs. The thought would be like McFadden, these education seeking women would break the chain. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Rebecca Walker on the 3rd Wave, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
== Ms.Magazine on 5 rights women could lose, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
Well, this is a frightening thought, however, if this was to happen.... move over Betty Friedan. We will have to make room in the history books for a new set of radicals. This country is not ready for the "Girl Power" we all have. <br />
In all seriousness, These rights will never be taken away. Fist of all, we may just have our first women President in office. There are too many women in powerful positions to loose these five rights Ms. Magazines speaks of. People such as Hillary Clinton, my mother-in-law, Dr. M and myself would not take women take a step back. Before taking this class, I really had no idea how far we've come....We've come too far to go back--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
'''The problem with Nikole's statement is that the Supreme Court bases their decisions on how they interpret the Constitution, and not public opinion. I agree that there would be great public outcry if women did lose their rights to reproductive privacy, affirmative action, protection against gender-based discrimination, family and medical leave, and quality health-care services, but that wouldn't stop the court's decision, nor would it over-rule or overturn it.''' So I do believe that there is a danger to lose such rights depending upon the views of the Justices and their rulings in future cases. I also believe that it is unlikely that the last four will be lost soon, but the '''Roe v. Wade is extremely controversial, and may be overturned.''' The current administration is certainly against it, but then, the current administration is also about to leave. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
I agree with Nikole, we have gone too far to go back now. I don't see how we could possibly lose any of these rights, I think that too many people would put up a fight if it were to happen. It amazed me at how close these Supreme Court decision were to going the other way. At this time I don't see how it could be possible for someone to not allow a women to take leave for a new baby or to care for a sick family member. At the same time all of this is a little scary that with just a change is members of the Supreme Court and a new case brought forth all of this could change. I just hope that I never have to see the day. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Well, I think that some of these rights are endanger (if that is the word for it). I mean, I am not sure how I feel about it, but I think there is an agreement to made both for and against Affirmative Action and Protection Against Gender-Based Discrimination. Will society ever reach such a progressive point that we won't need separate laws? If so... when? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
As far as gender based discrimination goes I read an interesting article about 6 months ago (of which i do not remember all the specifics) about how dental and medical schools in North Carolina were trying to seperate themselves from the public funded university and become private, so that they would not be controlled by qoutas set by the state. The reason they want to move away from these qoutas is so they don't have to accept as many women to their schools. '''I believe their reasoning was that professional women tend to work on average less than 15 years, while men work on average over 40 years. Apparently because of the high number of women that had been accepted to the dental and medical schools in the state, North Carolina had a shortage of dentists.''' Just something to think about - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Also, I think the other rights will remain protected. Men benefit from most of these rights as much as the women do. I am sure there would be plenty of distraught men if the right to sexual privacy got taken away. Also the rights dealing with familial leave and and quality health services would seem to help men just as much as the women. '''The affirmative action and the gender based discrimination rights are the only two that men have nothing to gain (from a selfish point of view) from.''' --Landon Davis<br />
<br />
'''I disagree with Landon on his point that men have nothing to gain on the affirmative action point. Example: UMW. We have a skewed gender ratio in our student population, something like 70% female to 30% male. The school is actively trying to get more male students, so that if they're looking at two students who have the same GPA and SAT scores, they're probably more likely to choose the male student over the female.''' It annoyed me when I was waiting to hear if I got accepted to Mary Wash that a guy in my class asked if I had gotten in yet, because he had. When I said I hadn't heard yet, he told me that because he was a guy, he was more likely to get in than me anyway. I got my acceptance letter later that week, but it really made me mad to hear him say that. The fact that he was smirking at me while saying it probably didn't help. So affirmative action doesn't mean that men have nothing to gain. Sometimes they do gain benefits. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== US, 565-586 – Rebecca Tsosie, “Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Female Identity.”—1988 ==<br />
Prior to reading Rebecca Tsosie's essay "Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Feminine Identity," I had never known Native American literature to be so profoundly developed. After reading the article, I definitely have a deep respect for the Native American literature genre. Maybe I will read some of it someday.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Like Justin, I too never realized just how developed the Native American literature was... and it feels silly for it to just now be dawning on me from the stories I have read related to Native Americans and the stories, songs, poems, et cetera that were mentioned in the stories/articles. I wonder why we don't have more of the Native American literature in public school... we seem to have so much in the way of English and American.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin, I never realized the extent of Native American literature out there. I have read some picture books that were designed to teach lessons to children, but other than that it never really occurred to me to look to see what else was there. '''I also too was curious as to why we don't see more of this genre of literature in schools. We have so many varieties of literature in the schools, why not include a few more?''' --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
“Changing Women…” by Rebecca Tsosie discusses the stereotypes that have been created about Indian women through literature and the media. On page 567 she states that '''“The princess/squaw dichotomy does not even approach the historical realities of Indian women…the primary factor in perceptions of both European women and Indian women became their definition in terms of their relationship with males.” I see her point, but it’s not something that’s special to Indian women. Stereotypes are developed and portrayed for almost any other type of way you can classify a person.''' In one of the first few weeks of class we read about how the views of Spanish-Mexican women were stereotyped and romanticized through the image that Barceló created for herself… --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MAW, Chapters 11-13<br />
<br />
== Cathy Tuley, “Clerical Workers Unite,” 1976. ==<br />
'''Cathy Tuley's involvement in organizing clerical workers helped her personal development by becoming more assertive and self-reliant in the workplace.''' She refers to utilizing this new found assertiveness in her personal life saying "Sometimes it's kind of rough when you do that to your husband! 'Give me the fact,' you know. 'Prove what you just said.'" '''This made me think that their was a duality that women had to play between work and home. In work she could be somewhat assertive (depending on her position), and in the home she was expected to remain a subservient role to the man of the house.'''--LisaM<br />
<br />
This piece had some parallels to my own work experience. '''So many workers, whether it is in the public school system of northern Virginia or in the constraints of a company like Sodexho, are not aware of their rights. ''' A '''worker does not have to be in the clerical field to experience mistreatment and abuse of power by their bosses. But from what I can tell, so many workers are so afraid that they will lose their job, that they don't protest, they don't try to find out more about their rights,and thus are stuck in an unhappy situation.''' I am glad there has been women like Cathy, and although this piece is from over 30 years ago, things have not changed that much. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Crystal Lee Sutton, “The Real ‘Norma Rae’ Tells Her Story,” 1986. ==<br />
<br />
Reading "The Real 'Norma Rae' Tells her Story" by Crystal Lee Sutton sure does bring back memories. I remember the first time I dealt with someone like that and coming up with well-reasoned arguments and everything in an attempt to persuade them. It's weird, when someone is not doing what they are supposed to do, why would they actually extend to you common courtesies like honesty. It really doesn't make any sense.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I think it was great that the man JB Younts was so supportive for her to go to the Union meeting and possible join. It seems that the more support Lee got the more she fought for the Union. Did many women make a similar stand to how Lee did?''' –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
'''I loved this essay. That certainly was a plucky lady. It's well written in a way that, I could almost picture the Big Bossman, grossly overweight, puffing a cigar, trying to intimidate her with his Southern drawl. I can cast his part! She stood up to him, and then had the guts to stand up on a table with a "Union" sign! Cool! ''' Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
I think was a very powerful piece, that really drew attention to the fact that even though women had made strides in labor laws via federal legislation, there were some places where such things didn't matter. By the way the Wagner Act was in place in 1935, but in 1973 unions were still outlawed in most southern companies. As was the way with segregation - the south and their notion of states rights - bah! And it took 5 years for Norma Rae to get her job back, after losing it only by acting within her Constitutional rights? '''I wonder how labor laws are in the South today.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Susan Eisenberg, “Hard-Hatted Women,” 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I thought the "Hard-hatted Women" essay in MAW was amazing! '''To learn that she became an electrician and managed to hide her pregnancy for 6 months before finally going on maternity-type leaving was just incredible!''' I was sad that she had a miscarriage, but was really impressed with how her co-workers supported her. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I understand fully how Eisenberg felt. I found out I was pregnant with my my second son, Nathan, the week before 9/11. We lived in the NJ/NY area at the time and EVERYONE was in fear of loosing their jobs. '''My fear went a step further thinking if anyone would loose their jobs it would be me. I kept my pregnancy to myself for a while.''' Then I got over my new hormonal state and dared anyone to discriminate against me. Unlike Eisenberg, I was not in the construction industry and It was 2002. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I appreciate your comment Nicole. This lady was very impressive. I can only empathize with your fears. '''Imagine how she must have felt, a pregnant woman on a construction site in the late 1970s? It's good that she did foster some better relationships with co-workers during subsequent pregnancies. Some of the insensitve remarks from her male co-workers were really nasty, but not surprising to me.''' I worked in trades and roofing some years ago. The thing to remember about men, is that at the end of the day, most of us are insecure little boys who still like to talk about sounds that emanate from our bodies, watch the Three Stooges hit each other with hard objects and laugh out loud, and still like to gawk and make immature noises at attractive women who walk by a work site... we really can't help ourselves as to our simple-mindedness in these areas and really don't mean anything by it. - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
== Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, “Organizing the Farm Workers,” 1980 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Johnnie Tillmon, “Women on Welfare,” 1972 ==<br />
The movie "Claudine" starring James Earl Jones and Diahann Carroll presents some of the issues raised in "Women on Welfare" by Johnnie Tillmon. When I saw it a few years ago, I remember thinking about how typically 70's it seemed. True it was released in '74, but what I mean is that it seemed to depict exactly what it meant to be black in the 1970's. Has anyone else seen it?--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I do not agree with the A.F.D.C that if a man is in the house, then the family cannot be supplied by welfare. As Johnnie stated, the man could not have a job and be living in the house; therefore he still cannot support his children. Welfare should be for any family that is financial unstable. Has much of the welfare requirements changed since then?''' <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"Welfare is a basic right of citizenship," and "housewives should get a legally determined percentage of their husbands income"????? They call this SOCIALISM. '''While acknowledging that our free-market ideology creates many inequities, these aren't answers either!''' Ms. Tillman obviously was not an economics major. It's like you guys on campus trying to get a living wage for the groundskeepers. Nice sentiment, won't work too well. Do you understand, that '''if everyone gets paid a LIVING WAGE for every job, then inflation kicks in, and the value of your $35,000 per year entry-level jobs after you graduate is NIL.''' Do you really believe its fair, as many are suggesting, that the UMW groundskeepers, janitorial staff, Johnnie Tillman's housewives, and everyone else, now would get a federally mandated minimum wage above the poverty line, say, $30,000 for a family of four? How do you feel now about working to get a degree and only earning a fraction more? Might as well have skipped college! - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
'''Phil has a point, not all of Johnnie's points were practical, but I just liked her. ''' I liked her spirit and she made some very good arguments against the common myths of welfare, such as "having babies for profit is a lie that only men could make up and only men could believe." Unfortunately like most things, the people that are quick to condemn it are the people who don't understand it. '''And as Johnnie said, most of the people at that time in the country receiving welfare were women. Johnnie also addressed a large perception in this country that people on welfare are lazy, and they should just get a job and stop free riding off the hard earned money of other Americans, but as she effectively pointed out, sometimes, they just can't. Sometimes you just need a little help, and as a citizen, it is the government's job to ensure every citizen's welfare, no pun intended.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Mariah Burton Nelson, “Sex and Sports” – 1994 ==<br />
'''I realize it is the point of the view of the author, but I honestly never thought there were so many lesbians in women sports leagues. I just never associated the two.''' Sure, I've heard other people associate women sports stars and lesbianism, but I never took them seriously. Wow, that's interesting.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I too was surprised to learn about how many women in sports were actually lesbians in this article. I had never heard anything ever reported on it. I did know that women fought hard to get recognition like the men did in their sorts. I remember watching a show on the women's US soccer team and how they fought for better pay like the male US soccer team as well as how Mia Hamm (sp?) was the one who helped them get that recoginition by doing the Pert shampoo commercials. '''Even when I think about it today, how many womens sports are actually on TV, I can think of plenty of male sports, like football, baseball, basketball, but women the only one or two I can think of is golf, and I think basketball, I could be wrong on that one though.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
'''This did not surprise me at all,''' I know of many female athletes that are lesbians. It was something that growing up with a sister in sports that my family really started to hear of all the lesbians out there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was also not surprised by this article. I think the reason most people are shocked by this information is because women sports are not covered to the same extent that men's sports are. '''Professional male athletes are idolized and hero-worshiped so when they are homosexual it becomes a really big deal. Professional female athletes however are no where near as popular so their sexuality is not as big a factor.''' - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the introduction to this article it talked about how mens' sports receive 92% of all TV coverage and 81% of all newspaper coverage. The tone of the article seemed to suggest that this was in some way unfair, or that it was somehow based in sexism. '''Really, I think this has nothing to do with sexism. Male sports just sell better, from my experience they are more exciting to watch, and they obviously draw a larger audience of both male and female viewers alike. So I think that this is based more in business sense than it is in sexism.''' -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
As a girl who once played Field Hockey and loves to watch sports, I agree with Landon, its not that the TVs air more male sports due to sexism but because they are more popular and fun to watch. People like to see action not saying women's sports are not action packed but, men's sports allow physical contact and speed, which is something that viewers like. '''From my personal experience I love football and lacrosse, two sports that are action packed, with the physical contact, speed and the skill work. Just because men;s sports are aired more doesn't mean that it has to do with sexism, its just the general population prefers to watch male athletics.''' -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Like Kellye, I wasn't surprised by the amount of lesbians in sports. What gets to be frustrating though is when, as a girl, you play a sport and close-minded people believe you're becoming a lesbian. Believe me, it happened to many girls on my teams in high school. Also I agree with Amanda about why women's sports aren't covered by the media as much. Women's sports tend to have a lot more rules about being aggressive and not as fast. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Marissa Navarro, “Becoming La Mujer” – 1998 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Mairs, “Women and Disabilities” – 1986 ==<br />
I found the Why me? Why not? portion of "Women and Disabilities" by Nancy Mairs to be fairly interesting. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found myself able to relate to this reading because when I was in middle school my Mom was diagnosed with MS. And I honestly have to say that if my mom hadn't been my hero before, she definitely is now. However, '''unlike Nancy Mairs my mother would never call herself a cripple, or at least I've never heard her do so, and I believe that this is largely because of the fact that the term cripple makes it sound like you can't do something, and lord help you if you ever tell my mother she can't do something.''' So I think that one of the reasons that this story stood out to me the most is because I've seen this first hand, yes my Mom can't do half the things she used to be able to do, but she refuses to let it depress her, she's always fighting to keep going and keep walking, but at the same time she does face things that others don't, such as a difficulty getting up and down stairs, which makes it hard for her to do some of the things she used to do. '''Though I did find it interesting that disabilities weren't talked about much until the 80s.''' -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
== Abra Fortune Chernik, “The Voice of an Anorexic” – 1995 ==<br />
<br />
'''This story really saddened me, because of how this girl viewed her self for so long'''. I was just glad that it had a happy ending, and that she was lucky enough to have survived as long as she did with this disease. This article just goes to prove that every time period through out the history of women there is an expected stereotype that is portrayed in culture and especially media like for this woman. For example during WWII media portrayed women as working to help to the counry but as soon as the men returned home they were happy to go back to being house wives, which in many cases wasn't true. For Abra Chernik, magazines of pretty skinny models was the new portrait of women, and '''often still is today.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eve Ensler, “The Vagina Monologues” – 1997 ==<br />
I have heard of "the Vagina Monologues" and I've even seen parts of it, but I never realized how much Ensler had actually been through herself. Being raped when you're such a young girl is traumatic and the fact that she took that and turned it into something positive is empowering. ''' And I agree with her and her theory about the word "vagina." Even today people have a hard time saying the actual word when referencing female (and male) genatalia and they usually use other words or nicknames. It's kind of sad, actually, that even after having sexual education classes and making sure that students today know the parts of the body, people are still so scared to use the real words.''' Yes, there are publications and television shows and broadway plays that occasionally use the real words, but if you listen to those scripts as well and read those articles you'll notice that other words or phrases normally replace the actual word (unless it's a medical journal, of course.) That's where slang starts. It just goes to show, I guess, that some mind sets never change. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This really isn't a salient point, but I think it's all due to the fact that our country was founded by a bunch of prude puritans. :) - Sarah<br />
<br />
Sorry I'm a little playful this week, but when Ms. Ensler mentions that her vagina represents her "second heart," I can only hope that some of the proceeds of her provacative and very popular script is going to a therapist. '''In the sake of fair play,''' when will UMW hold a PENIS Week, or "P" week? After all, I think the school is about 30% guys. I wonder what penises would say to one another. Would they drink beer and watch sports like the rest of us? - Phil Novalski. (On a serious note - her cause is a great one. PN.)<br />
<br />
I also think that the Vagina Monologues are a very positive way to talk about a traumatic experience. I do remember a year or two ago reading about a conservative women's group that protested this program at a college. I believe they said that it degraded women and the monologues were gross and offensive. I haven't seen the show but I don't understand how women talking about personal experiences could be degrading to women or offending them. I think any time women share their experiences helps people understand what it's like to be a woman. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Susan Faludi, “The Backlash Against Feminism” – 1991 ==<br />
I thought it was interesting to read “The Backlash against Feminism” by Susan Faludi. '''In it, she points out that even though politicians and the media are continually boasting that women have indeed reached equality and every opportunity is open to them, there is another front that these people are overlooking, and that is emotional. Women still face continual pressure by the media to conform to what is expected of them. As a result there are increasing stories, such as the one by Abra Chernik, of “stress-induced disorders.”''' It seems as though we are now entering a time where''' ''politics may not influence a woman’s limitations in society as much as popular culture.''''' --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Anita Hill, “A Woman of Conscience” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I chose to write on this topic because after I read Anita Hill's testimony, I asked myself how this would affect my vote if I had one. I'm torn, because it seems like it should be impossible to elect someone to the Supreme Court who is guilty of serial sexual harassment, but at the same time, it seems wrong to deny a candidacy based on entirely non-falsifiable testimony. My gut says Anita Hill was right, and that seems to be supported by outside sources (such as a Hill-basher who later admitted he was lying, labeling himself "part of the Republican propaganda machine" and a "Conservative hitman"), but in other situations, how do you make a decision like this? -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Katie Roiphe, “Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic?” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I had mixed feelings about this reading. '''I had never thought that the very concept of date rape could enforce the traditional stereotyped sexual roles that women always had of being the ones who don't want sex when men did. However, I also feel like Katie Roiphe, while she has good points, ignores the possibility that some of these women really didn't want sex with these men and instead she seems to have the idea that these women were using the cry of rape to excuse their sexual behaviour.''' While in some cases this might be true, I highly doubt this is the majority. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Frankly this reading upset me and I disagree with Roiphe. '''I don't think that society or women use the term rape too lightly.''' I do think that '''cultural ideals do send messages to women that they shouldn't act sexual and when they do they should be ashamed of their actions. I believe that this is the issue that really needs to be addressed.''' The reality is that women are taken advantage of but '''men are taken advantage of as well'''. Rape is not one way and too often men are embarressed to admit being pressured into sexual situations because of their gender expectations. Roiphe's generalizing views are not really important when you take rape cases individually, because it's not as simple as "I went on a date and it resulted in sex and it was his fault because I was helpless." Not everyone lived through the same "date rape" situation and if they perceived they had been violated by another then their word should stand. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Meredith brings up a good point. This is one situation where the sexual double standard actually hurts men. If a guy wakes up the next morning and realizes he slept with someone he did not want to, all he can really call it is a mistake. If a guy woke up and claimed that a girl raped him he would be laughed at (at least by the gentleman i know). '''I think now-a-days the biggest problem concerning date rape has to be alcohol''', i bet very rarely does a sober date rape incident occur. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Elizabeth, Meredith and Landon all bring up excellent points. The article did put me off a bit. Date rape education (and repoting) should be encouraged. I don't think women "like" to report being raped. I just read testimony in the paper yesterday from a girl at Annapolis that was raped by a fellow cadet and you could feel her pain coming out. '''I think rape is likely still very much an underreported crime.''' Landon's point about alcohol likely being involved quite often in date rape situations (especially on campuses) is a good one. - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
== Christine Hoff Sommers, “Who Stole Feminism?” – 1994 ==<br />
'''"What has real feminism to do with sitting around in circles talking about our feelings and menstruation?" HAHAHA. First of all, I'd like to say that Ms. Hoff seems a little bitter about the way women's studies classes are being taught. That said, I think she does raise a valid concern. Most people today (women and men alike) hear the word "feminist" and a negative connotation is automatically thrown with it.''' Forget the fact that you do not have to be a bra-burning, man-hating, same-sex-loving hippie to be a feminist. Forget the fact that you can be a strong, independent, normal girl and be a feminist. Instead, most people hear "feminist" and automatically throw that first connotation right onto it, and men who admit to being feminists are normally mocked which is a shame. Unlike our dear author, I thought the rules that one class presents to it's students at the beginning of the semester was a fantastic idea. It forces the student to enter the class with an open mind and realize that feminism was a movement fighting oppression just like most other movements. One has to go into the class and acknowledge that oppression exists and that you have to respect your classmate's rights. I disagree with her statement that "anything said in the classroom should be repeatable outside." Yes, I believe that students should not be ashamed to speak their opinion, but when discussing such a tough topic, the fact that someone is voicing their opinion should be enough. If they don't want that repeated outside the walls of their classroom, they shouldn't have to worry about it. I believe it teaches students to respect and trust one another. '''To be honest, our dear Ms. Hoff kind of bugged me.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== United States v. Virginia (1996), “Equal Protection Under the Law” [VMI case] – 1996 ==<br />
'''The Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia is probably the case that I am most passionate about because it literally hits home.''' I was born and raised in Lexington, home of Virginia Military Institute, and both my father and my brother graduated from VMI. Hearing the stories my dad tells about the Old Corps and witnessing my brother going through Hell Week and the Ratline, I came to understand how physically, mentally, emotionally, and academically demanding VMI is...or once was. Even though I was all of ten years old when this case was decided, I was against VMI being forced to admit women. I had a feeling that things would only become worse...and I was right. For the past two summers, I have gone to VMI for summer school, (which you do not have to be a cadet to attend) and I have taken classes with some of the female cadets that do attend VMI. I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest woman in the world, but in a freshman level World History class that I took, we were asked to read aloud from the textbook, and honest to God, these girls could barely read! Not only that, but many of them were obviously not in top physical condition. I always heard my brother talking about how horrible the "shedets" were, but now I saw it with my own eyes. Because of United States v. Virginia, VMI was basically forced to lower its standards and accept any female applicants, regardless of their scholastic aptitude or physical prowess. Granted, I do know a select few female cadets who do exceed the academic and physical qualifications that the school lays out, and they have risen to prominent positions in the Corps, but an overwhelming majority of female cadets are not like this. '''So which is worse - not having females at a state supported school that has been an all-male school since its inception, or having to significantly lower standards of acceptance just so sub-par females can attend the school in the name of equality?''' VMI has had to make so many changes and sacrifices in order for women to attend. Barracks had to be renovated so that females could live there, and traditions like Hell Week, sweat parties, and other Ratline activities had to be modified to accommodate women. If the women who attended VMI after the case was decided really wanted things to be equal, then they would have attended the school under the rules of the Old Corps. They did not. Even with the relaxed physical and academic regulations for women, out of the approximately one hundred women who start the Ratline in August, probably only twenty have what it takes to make it through Hell Week, and the numbers tend to diminish after that. The fact that VMI has been forced to lower its standards to accommodate females has really lowered its reputation in the minds of both alumni and current cadets. It is not the same school my father went to, and now he jokingly says that the VMI my brother attended was a country club. '''The men that attend VMI today have been forced to sacrifice the experiences that the alumni had in the Old Corps...how is that for unequal?''' -Marilyn<br />
<br />
== Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, “A Third Wave Feminist Manifesta” – 2000 ==<br />
'''I LOVED the Third Wave Feminist Manifesta. To me, that is what feminism is all about, and that is what women today should be striving for. This is a manifesta for feminists our age and I believe that every point they raise is important. There is nothing outrageous about any of their plans and, in my opinion and as cheesy as this sounds, the list looks to make the world a better place for women. Everything from Point number 1 about outing unacknowledged feminists to point number 13 about passing the Equal Rights Amendment is important (one I love being point number 10 because I hate the demeaning nicknames 12 year olds use for each other these days.) It's a well thought out manifesta and it's kind of scary how much this applies to us. They're talking to our generation and it's just weird to see where the feminist movement has gone since the second wave movement in the 1960s and 1970s.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Bunch, “Global Feminism” – 1995 [at the UN Beijing Women’s Conference] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua, “The Borderlands” – 1987 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow, the head chef of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City doesn't seem to be that prestigious, if Velma James's 1976 photograph "A Day in the Kitchen" means anything. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It was kind of strange seeing the photo of Marion Jones in the book.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
Must have been strange being a Stanford graduate with a degree in psychology and being asked to go to charm school.--Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_14_Questions/Comments328--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T12:58:46Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Eve Ensler, “The Vagina Monologues” – 1997 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching comments ==<br />
<br />
I just have a general comment. '''It was surprising to me how recent some of these essays were dated. I guess I never thought of this time period as very relevant or active for women's rights... because I guess it is!''' I mean I would definitely describe myself as a feminists, but I guess I kind of feel that in this day and age... '''doesn't every women in my age bracket feel like a feminist? Are there actually people in the younger generation today that are advocating for women to be defined by their role of mother and that is it?''' I think it is great if a women chooses to stay home with her family, but really i just think ti is great if a women chooses whatever makes her happy, no matter what that is. Do all people in this generation not feel this way?- Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
To answer Cat's question, no not everyone in this generation feels that way. There are still debutants in the South who go to school to find a husband and take classes to be good housewives. '''I also had some girls on my floor freshman year who were forming a housewives club to learn how to cook and clean and be good housewives.''' - Chrisitne W.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----------------------------------<br />
MP, 459-469, 506-524<br />
<br />
== Roe v. Wade Decision (both Blackmun’s majority ruling and White’s dissent). ==<br />
I'll take the first whack, since nobody else is touching this yet. First let me say, that a woman's body is her own and should be fully respected. Justice Blackmun mentions the 14th Amendment not recognizing a fetus as a person. This is technically and legally correct. That being said, technology now gives us more information, which perhaps can make choices for women even more difficult. The abortion argument has centered, for quite some time, on one question: When does life begin? At conception, when a fetus is considered viable (22-24 weeks approximately) or at full term. This has been the subject of much debate. The most difficult part of the equation is the inherent EMOTION that will always be involved in this debate, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. ''' A big part ot the problem also is the extreme rhetoric used by both sides''' - example. - Pro-lifers screaming "baby Killers" at Planned Parenhood workers; Pro-choice women insisting that their bodies are essentially theirs and theirs alone, even though a 20 week old fetus is kicking her belly, and a 30 week old fetus can make her foot or hand visible on a mother's belly! Unfortunately, common sense in America rarely prevails. RU 486 is still a restricted drug. A pregnancy terminated in the first several weeks, I have no moral qualms with. However, I have to confess to this: I have attended over a dozen fetal ultrasound sessions with my wife, at least two for each of my children, the last many because of a prenatal problem. As of our last child (2006), Ultrasound technology could detect a visible FETAL HEARTBEAT at six to seven weeks gestation. The heartrate is over 150 beats per minute, and resembles a very quickly twinkling star, or almost like a twinkle light on a Christmas tree. Sorry to get emotional, but at this point, this IS A LIFE. At least as far as my wife and I were concerned, we were then charged with the responsiblity of protecting that life however we could. For my wife, it meant taking good care of herself and refraining from alcohol and reducing caffeine intake. For me, it meant stepping up the pace on my end with housework, taking out the cat litter all the time (toxic for pregnant women) and being patient when crying jags and nesting urges kicked in for my better half. But it was all worth it! - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Phil on the first several weeks part. At that point, the fetus is really nothing but a bunch of dividing cells. '''I honestly don't know how I feel about abortion.''' I think that it is important to be able to allow women who are fatally at risk to be able to have them, but I have some issues with the way some people use and treat abortion. The main problem that I have is when people use it as a form of birth control. When my mother first started working as a nurse, a woman called for a nurse to help her out of the bathroom. She assisted the lady, and then went back to flush the toilet for her. There was a bloody fetus in the toilet bowl. Needless to say, my mother freaked out. The nurses who had been there longer told her that that woman comes in every several months and has an abortion, and that she used it as birth control. Now, I know that this is not the norm, or at least I hope not, but instead of killing the child, take the care to prevent its conception first. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
There are no easy answers to this topic, but I don't think that one person has the right to dictate to another, in this case a woman, what she can or cannot do with her body. The original anti-abortion laws were written and maintained by men. Here comes a women's group saying that they have a right to control what happens with their bodies, and the Supreme Court validated that right with Roe vs. Wade. For every story where abortion seems inappropriate, there is probably a story of justification. Why do people think that reversing Roe vs. Wade will stop abortion? If you remember, women were aborting long before the decision at the risk of their health and life. If the decision is ever reversed, I imagine women will still seek out abortions.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Lindsey Van Gelder reports on “Women vs. the NY Times” in Ms. in 1978. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Connaught Marshner explains what social conservatives really want, 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I found this essay really interesting. '''I was shocked by how much this women feared divorce and female independence.''' Did she honestly think that women that were still "fulfilled" without a man around and raised children without a man in the house were actually ruining society? This was written in 1988!! - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat, Marshner's opinions seem somewhat outdated today. But she also seems to be a product of Reagan and many popular opinion shifts of the 1980s. I think the increase in divorce rate as well as the family's decrease of importance "functions once served by the family are now provided by the government" brought about the resurfacing of issues like family and women's obligation to making the home a stable environment. '''I think that the issue of divorce and the effect it has on a single mother is still an issue today. But Marshner is very narrow minded by stating that traditional values work best. She is stuck in the white middle class ideal and fails to acknowledge that many successful families no longer operate by traditional manner.''' -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 ==<br />
<br />
'''Planned Parenthood v Casey seems to be probably the most complicated court case ever decided.''' I read the whole decision, not just the part in the textbook (and I've read outside readings on it), and it seems like '''Casey concludes two things, and then applies them in different ways. 1) Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was a correct decision, but because of ''stare decisis,'' the "rule" that the Court has to stick with what it said before; and, 2) some regulations on abortion are fine, but when they pose an undue burden to abortion they are illegal.<br />
I won't take a stance on abortion, but the ''stare decisis'' rational seems crazy to me.''' It seems like a few judges (including or limited to Blackmum) decided that Roe was correct, and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter decided that Roe was wrong, but the Court should uphold it lest there seem to be instability in the law. Casey acknowledges "the interest of the State in the protection of potential life" which seems to be a repudiation of Roe on all but technical grounds. It seems unjust to me to uphold a law purely because the Supreme Court isn't allowed to admit it was wrong.<br />
The undue burden standard seems somewhat rational to me, but only as a political compromise which the Court isn't supposed to do. In reading PP v Casey I can't find a single legal rationale for the undue burden standard, it seems completely arbitrary. It also seems like in many instances the Court is making law, not adjudicating it, and making it in a very vague fashion. The Court decided requirements for parental consent, informed decision, and 24 hour waiting periods were undue burdens, but spousal notification was not. Although I agree very much with at least the rational behind the last one, this sounds like something that should be debated by elected officials, not lifetime judges. <br />
Also, I think the subdecision on parental consent proves the arbitrariness of the entire undue burden standard. If parents have a complete yes/no veto option over whether an abortion can happen, it seems like that's an undue burden, yet the Court ruled it was not. The legal argument that sometimes parents' rights come before some rights doesn't work, because if that's true than the right to abortion isn't ''fundamental,'' and Roe should have been overturned. Something is wrong with the legal system when justices form alliances to carve out politically biased, legally contradictory chunks of law.<br />
'''I guess I don't understand why Roe v. Wade attracts so much attention these days, it seems like PP v Casey is much more relevant now, and a much more controversial (and legally questionable) decision.''' -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Asma Gull Hasan, Pakistani-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
I learned a lot this week in the reading about "First- and Second- Generation Immigrant Women Speak of Living Inbetween Cultures," particularly about Asma Gull Hasan. I learned a great deal about the Muslim culture from her reading that I had only assumed before from the skewed material I've seen from the news. I did not realize that the Qur'an gave women that kind of status and honored them as much as they did. It really was an interesting reading and a learning experience at the same time! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kyoko Mori, Japanese-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jamala McFadden’s Story of 1990s Welfare Assistance, 2002 ==<br />
This is a "feel good story". I love hearing about women beating the odds,for an education, with children no less. '''Welfare made a difference in McFadden's life because she had drive and ambition and used government assistance to better her life. This is what assistance if for. Too often we hear of people misusing welfare therefore giving a stereotype to its recipients.''' McFadden spoke of the changes made in the welfare system while she was still in college. She said she was lucky to be "grandfathered" in. I do feel that daycare assistance should be offered to women attending college. To me, this would be money better spent than on women who have a minimum wage jobs. The thought would be like McFadden, these education seeking women would break the chain. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Rebecca Walker on the 3rd Wave, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
== Ms.Magazine on 5 rights women could lose, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
Well, this is a frightening thought, however, if this was to happen.... move over Betty Friedan. We will have to make room in the history books for a new set of radicals. This country is not ready for the "Girl Power" we all have. <br />
In all seriousness, These rights will never be taken away. Fist of all, we may just have our first women President in office. There are too many women in powerful positions to loose these five rights Ms. Magazines speaks of. People such as Hillary Clinton, my mother-in-law, Dr. M and myself would not take women take a step back. Before taking this class, I really had no idea how far we've come....We've come too far to go back--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
'''The problem with Nikole's statement is that the Supreme Court bases their decisions on how they interpret the Constitution, and not public opinion. I agree that there would be great public outcry if women did lose their rights to reproductive privacy, affirmative action, protection against gender-based discrimination, family and medical leave, and quality health-care services, but that wouldn't stop the court's decision, nor would it over-rule or overturn it.''' So I do believe that there is a danger to lose such rights depending upon the views of the Justices and their rulings in future cases. I also believe that it is unlikely that the last four will be lost soon, but the '''Roe v. Wade is extremely controversial, and may be overturned.''' The current administration is certainly against it, but then, the current administration is also about to leave. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
I agree with Nikole, we have gone too far to go back now. I don't see how we could possibly lose any of these rights, I think that too many people would put up a fight if it were to happen. It amazed me at how close these Supreme Court decision were to going the other way. At this time I don't see how it could be possible for someone to not allow a women to take leave for a new baby or to care for a sick family member. At the same time all of this is a little scary that with just a change is members of the Supreme Court and a new case brought forth all of this could change. I just hope that I never have to see the day. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Well, I think that some of these rights are endanger (if that is the word for it). I mean, I am not sure how I feel about it, but I think there is an agreement to made both for and against Affirmative Action and Protection Against Gender-Based Discrimination. Will society ever reach such a progressive point that we won't need separate laws? If so... when? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
As far as gender based discrimination goes I read an interesting article about 6 months ago (of which i do not remember all the specifics) about how dental and medical schools in North Carolina were trying to seperate themselves from the public funded university and become private, so that they would not be controlled by qoutas set by the state. The reason they want to move away from these qoutas is so they don't have to accept as many women to their schools. '''I believe their reasoning was that professional women tend to work on average less than 15 years, while men work on average over 40 years. Apparently because of the high number of women that had been accepted to the dental and medical schools in the state, North Carolina had a shortage of dentists.''' Just something to think about - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Also, I think the other rights will remain protected. Men benefit from most of these rights as much as the women do. I am sure there would be plenty of distraught men if the right to sexual privacy got taken away. Also the rights dealing with familial leave and and quality health services would seem to help men just as much as the women. '''The affirmative action and the gender based discrimination rights are the only two that men have nothing to gain (from a selfish point of view) from.''' --Landon Davis<br />
<br />
'''I disagree with Landon on his point that men have nothing to gain on the affirmative action point. Example: UMW. We have a skewed gender ratio in our student population, something like 70% female to 30% male. The school is actively trying to get more male students, so that if they're looking at two students who have the same GPA and SAT scores, they're probably more likely to choose the male student over the female.''' It annoyed me when I was waiting to hear if I got accepted to Mary Wash that a guy in my class asked if I had gotten in yet, because he had. When I said I hadn't heard yet, he told me that because he was a guy, he was more likely to get in than me anyway. I got my acceptance letter later that week, but it really made me mad to hear him say that. The fact that he was smirking at me while saying it probably didn't help. So affirmative action doesn't mean that men have nothing to gain. Sometimes they do gain benefits. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== US, 565-586 – Rebecca Tsosie, “Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Female Identity.”—1988 ==<br />
Prior to reading Rebecca Tsosie's essay "Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Feminine Identity," I had never known Native American literature to be so profoundly developed. After reading the article, I definitely have a deep respect for the Native American literature genre. Maybe I will read some of it someday.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Like Justin, I too never realized just how developed the Native American literature was... and it feels silly for it to just now be dawning on me from the stories I have read related to Native Americans and the stories, songs, poems, et cetera that were mentioned in the stories/articles. I wonder why we don't have more of the Native American literature in public school... we seem to have so much in the way of English and American.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin, I never realized the extent of Native American literature out there. I have read some picture books that were designed to teach lessons to children, but other than that it never really occurred to me to look to see what else was there. '''I also too was curious as to why we don't see more of this genre of literature in schools. We have so many varieties of literature in the schools, why not include a few more?''' --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
“Changing Women…” by Rebecca Tsosie discusses the stereotypes that have been created about Indian women through literature and the media. On page 567 she states that '''“The princess/squaw dichotomy does not even approach the historical realities of Indian women…the primary factor in perceptions of both European women and Indian women became their definition in terms of their relationship with males.” I see her point, but it’s not something that’s special to Indian women. Stereotypes are developed and portrayed for almost any other type of way you can classify a person.''' In one of the first few weeks of class we read about how the views of Spanish-Mexican women were stereotyped and romanticized through the image that Barceló created for herself… --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MAW, Chapters 11-13<br />
<br />
== Cathy Tuley, “Clerical Workers Unite,” 1976. ==<br />
'''Cathy Tuley's involvement in organizing clerical workers helped her personal development by becoming more assertive and self-reliant in the workplace.''' She refers to utilizing this new found assertiveness in her personal life saying "Sometimes it's kind of rough when you do that to your husband! 'Give me the fact,' you know. 'Prove what you just said.'" '''This made me think that their was a duality that women had to play between work and home. In work she could be somewhat assertive (depending on her position), and in the home she was expected to remain a subservient role to the man of the house.'''--LisaM<br />
<br />
This piece had some parallels to my own work experience. '''So many workers, whether it is in the public school system of northern Virginia or in the constraints of a company like Sodexho, are not aware of their rights. ''' A '''worker does not have to be in the clerical field to experience mistreatment and abuse of power by their bosses. But from what I can tell, so many workers are so afraid that they will lose their job, that they don't protest, they don't try to find out more about their rights,and thus are stuck in an unhappy situation.''' I am glad there has been women like Cathy, and although this piece is from over 30 years ago, things have not changed that much. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Crystal Lee Sutton, “The Real ‘Norma Rae’ Tells Her Story,” 1986. ==<br />
<br />
Reading "The Real 'Norma Rae' Tells her Story" by Crystal Lee Sutton sure does bring back memories. I remember the first time I dealt with someone like that and coming up with well-reasoned arguments and everything in an attempt to persuade them. It's weird, when someone is not doing what they are supposed to do, why would they actually extend to you common courtesies like honesty. It really doesn't make any sense.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I think it was great that the man JB Younts was so supportive for her to go to the Union meeting and possible join. It seems that the more support Lee got the more she fought for the Union. Did many women make a similar stand to how Lee did?''' –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
'''I loved this essay. That certainly was a plucky lady. It's well written in a way that, I could almost picture the Big Bossman, grossly overweight, puffing a cigar, trying to intimidate her with his Southern drawl. I can cast his part! She stood up to him, and then had the guts to stand up on a table with a "Union" sign! Cool! ''' Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
I think was a very powerful piece, that really drew attention to the fact that even though women had made strides in labor laws via federal legislation, there were some places where such things didn't matter. By the way the Wagner Act was in place in 1935, but in 1973 unions were still outlawed in most southern companies. As was the way with segregation - the south and their notion of states rights - bah! And it took 5 years for Norma Rae to get her job back, after losing it only by acting within her Constitutional rights? '''I wonder how labor laws are in the South today.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Susan Eisenberg, “Hard-Hatted Women,” 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I thought the "Hard-hatted Women" essay in MAW was amazing! '''To learn that she became an electrician and managed to hide her pregnancy for 6 months before finally going on maternity-type leaving was just incredible!''' I was sad that she had a miscarriage, but was really impressed with how her co-workers supported her. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I understand fully how Eisenberg felt. I found out I was pregnant with my my second son, Nathan, the week before 9/11. We lived in the NJ/NY area at the time and EVERYONE was in fear of loosing their jobs. '''My fear went a step further thinking if anyone would loose their jobs it would be me. I kept my pregnancy to myself for a while.''' Then I got over my new hormonal state and dared anyone to discriminate against me. Unlike Eisenberg, I was not in the construction industry and It was 2002. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I appreciate your comment Nicole. This lady was very impressive. I can only empathize with your fears. '''Imagine how she must have felt, a pregnant woman on a construction site in the late 1970s? It's good that she did foster some better relationships with co-workers during subsequent pregnancies. Some of the insensitve remarks from her male co-workers were really nasty, but not surprising to me.''' I worked in trades and roofing some years ago. The thing to remember about men, is that at the end of the day, most of us are insecure little boys who still like to talk about sounds that emanate from our bodies, watch the Three Stooges hit each other with hard objects and laugh out loud, and still like to gawk and make immature noises at attractive women who walk by a work site... we really can't help ourselves as to our simple-mindedness in these areas and really don't mean anything by it. - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
== Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, “Organizing the Farm Workers,” 1980 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Johnnie Tillmon, “Women on Welfare,” 1972 ==<br />
The movie "Claudine" starring James Earl Jones and Diahann Carroll presents some of the issues raised in "Women on Welfare" by Johnnie Tillmon. When I saw it a few years ago, I remember thinking about how typically 70's it seemed. True it was released in '74, but what I mean is that it seemed to depict exactly what it meant to be black in the 1970's. Has anyone else seen it?--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I do not agree with the A.F.D.C that if a man is in the house, then the family cannot be supplied by welfare. As Johnnie stated, the man could not have a job and be living in the house; therefore he still cannot support his children. Welfare should be for any family that is financial unstable. Has much of the welfare requirements changed since then?''' <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"Welfare is a basic right of citizenship," and "housewives should get a legally determined percentage of their husbands income"????? They call this SOCIALISM. '''While acknowledging that our free-market ideology creates many inequities, these aren't answers either!''' Ms. Tillman obviously was not an economics major. It's like you guys on campus trying to get a living wage for the groundskeepers. Nice sentiment, won't work too well. Do you understand, that '''if everyone gets paid a LIVING WAGE for every job, then inflation kicks in, and the value of your $35,000 per year entry-level jobs after you graduate is NIL.''' Do you really believe its fair, as many are suggesting, that the UMW groundskeepers, janitorial staff, Johnnie Tillman's housewives, and everyone else, now would get a federally mandated minimum wage above the poverty line, say, $30,000 for a family of four? How do you feel now about working to get a degree and only earning a fraction more? Might as well have skipped college! - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
'''Phil has a point, not all of Johnnie's points were practical, but I just liked her. ''' I liked her spirit and she made some very good arguments against the common myths of welfare, such as "having babies for profit is a lie that only men could make up and only men could believe." Unfortunately like most things, the people that are quick to condemn it are the people who don't understand it. '''And as Johnnie said, most of the people at that time in the country receiving welfare were women. Johnnie also addressed a large perception in this country that people on welfare are lazy, and they should just get a job and stop free riding off the hard earned money of other Americans, but as she effectively pointed out, sometimes, they just can't. Sometimes you just need a little help, and as a citizen, it is the government's job to ensure every citizen's welfare, no pun intended.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Mariah Burton Nelson, “Sex and Sports” – 1994 ==<br />
'''I realize it is the point of the view of the author, but I honestly never thought there were so many lesbians in women sports leagues. I just never associated the two.''' Sure, I've heard other people associate women sports stars and lesbianism, but I never took them seriously. Wow, that's interesting.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I too was surprised to learn about how many women in sports were actually lesbians in this article. I had never heard anything ever reported on it. I did know that women fought hard to get recognition like the men did in their sorts. I remember watching a show on the women's US soccer team and how they fought for better pay like the male US soccer team as well as how Mia Hamm (sp?) was the one who helped them get that recoginition by doing the Pert shampoo commercials. '''Even when I think about it today, how many womens sports are actually on TV, I can think of plenty of male sports, like football, baseball, basketball, but women the only one or two I can think of is golf, and I think basketball, I could be wrong on that one though.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
'''This did not surprise me at all,''' I know of many female athletes that are lesbians. It was something that growing up with a sister in sports that my family really started to hear of all the lesbians out there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was also not surprised by this article. I think the reason most people are shocked by this information is because women sports are not covered to the same extent that men's sports are. '''Professional male athletes are idolized and hero-worshiped so when they are homosexual it becomes a really big deal. Professional female athletes however are no where near as popular so their sexuality is not as big a factor.''' - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the introduction to this article it talked about how mens' sports receive 92% of all TV coverage and 81% of all newspaper coverage. The tone of the article seemed to suggest that this was in some way unfair, or that it was somehow based in sexism. '''Really, I think this has nothing to do with sexism. Male sports just sell better, from my experience they are more exciting to watch, and they obviously draw a larger audience of both male and female viewers alike. So I think that this is based more in business sense than it is in sexism.''' -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
As a girl who once played Field Hockey and loves to watch sports, I agree with Landon, its not that the TVs air more male sports due to sexism but because they are more popular and fun to watch. People like to see action not saying women's sports are not action packed but, men's sports allow physical contact and speed, which is something that viewers like. '''From my personal experience I love football and lacrosse, two sports that are action packed, with the physical contact, speed and the skill work. Just because men;s sports are aired more doesn't mean that it has to do with sexism, its just the general population prefers to watch male athletics.''' -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
== Marissa Navarro, “Becoming La Mujer” – 1998 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Mairs, “Women and Disabilities” – 1986 ==<br />
I found the Why me? Why not? portion of "Women and Disabilities" by Nancy Mairs to be fairly interesting. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found myself able to relate to this reading because when I was in middle school my Mom was diagnosed with MS. And I honestly have to say that if my mom hadn't been my hero before, she definitely is now. However, '''unlike Nancy Mairs my mother would never call herself a cripple, or at least I've never heard her do so, and I believe that this is largely because of the fact that the term cripple makes it sound like you can't do something, and lord help you if you ever tell my mother she can't do something.''' So I think that one of the reasons that this story stood out to me the most is because I've seen this first hand, yes my Mom can't do half the things she used to be able to do, but she refuses to let it depress her, she's always fighting to keep going and keep walking, but at the same time she does face things that others don't, such as a difficulty getting up and down stairs, which makes it hard for her to do some of the things she used to do. '''Though I did find it interesting that disabilities weren't talked about much until the 80s.''' -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
== Abra Fortune Chernik, “The Voice of an Anorexic” – 1995 ==<br />
<br />
'''This story really saddened me, because of how this girl viewed her self for so long'''. I was just glad that it had a happy ending, and that she was lucky enough to have survived as long as she did with this disease. This article just goes to prove that every time period through out the history of women there is an expected stereotype that is portrayed in culture and especially media like for this woman. For example during WWII media portrayed women as working to help to the counry but as soon as the men returned home they were happy to go back to being house wives, which in many cases wasn't true. For Abra Chernik, magazines of pretty skinny models was the new portrait of women, and '''often still is today.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eve Ensler, “The Vagina Monologues” – 1997 ==<br />
I have heard of "the Vagina Monologues" and I've even seen parts of it, but I never realized how much Ensler had actually been through herself. Being raped when you're such a young girl is traumatic and the fact that she took that and turned it into something positive is empowering. ''' And I agree with her and her theory about the word "vagina." Even today people have a hard time saying the actual word when referencing female (and male) genatalia and they usually use other words or nicknames. It's kind of sad, actually, that even after having sexual education classes and making sure that students today know the parts of the body, people are still so scared to use the real words.''' Yes, there are publications and television shows and broadway plays that occasionally use the real words, but if you listen to those scripts as well and read those articles you'll notice that other words or phrases normally replace the actual word (unless it's a medical journal, of course.) That's where slang starts. It just goes to show, I guess, that some mind sets never change. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This really isn't a salient point, but I think it's all due to the fact that our country was founded by a bunch of prude puritans. :) - Sarah<br />
<br />
Sorry I'm a little playful this week, but when Ms. Ensler mentions that her vagina represents her "second heart," I can only hope that some of the proceeds of her provacative and very popular script is going to a therapist. '''In the sake of fair play,''' when will UMW hold a PENIS Week, or "P" week? After all, I think the school is about 30% guys. I wonder what penises would say to one another. Would they drink beer and watch sports like the rest of us? - Phil Novalski. (On a serious note - her cause is a great one. PN.)<br />
<br />
I also think that the Vagina Monologues are a very positive way to talk about a traumatic experience. I do remember a year or two ago reading about a conservative women's group that protested this program at a college. I believe they said that it degraded women and the monologues were gross and offensive. I haven't seen the show but I don't understand how women talking about personal experiences could be degrading to women or offending them. I think any time women share their experiences helps people understand what it's like to be a woman. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Susan Faludi, “The Backlash Against Feminism” – 1991 ==<br />
I thought it was interesting to read “The Backlash against Feminism” by Susan Faludi. '''In it, she points out that even though politicians and the media are continually boasting that women have indeed reached equality and every opportunity is open to them, there is another front that these people are overlooking, and that is emotional. Women still face continual pressure by the media to conform to what is expected of them. As a result there are increasing stories, such as the one by Abra Chernik, of “stress-induced disorders.”''' It seems as though we are now entering a time where''' ''politics may not influence a woman’s limitations in society as much as popular culture.''''' --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Anita Hill, “A Woman of Conscience” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I chose to write on this topic because after I read Anita Hill's testimony, I asked myself how this would affect my vote if I had one. I'm torn, because it seems like it should be impossible to elect someone to the Supreme Court who is guilty of serial sexual harassment, but at the same time, it seems wrong to deny a candidacy based on entirely non-falsifiable testimony. My gut says Anita Hill was right, and that seems to be supported by outside sources (such as a Hill-basher who later admitted he was lying, labeling himself "part of the Republican propaganda machine" and a "Conservative hitman"), but in other situations, how do you make a decision like this? -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Katie Roiphe, “Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic?” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I had mixed feelings about this reading. '''I had never thought that the very concept of date rape could enforce the traditional stereotyped sexual roles that women always had of being the ones who don't want sex when men did. However, I also feel like Katie Roiphe, while she has good points, ignores the possibility that some of these women really didn't want sex with these men and instead she seems to have the idea that these women were using the cry of rape to excuse their sexual behaviour.''' While in some cases this might be true, I highly doubt this is the majority. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Frankly this reading upset me and I disagree with Roiphe. '''I don't think that society or women use the term rape too lightly.''' I do think that '''cultural ideals do send messages to women that they shouldn't act sexual and when they do they should be ashamed of their actions. I believe that this is the issue that really needs to be addressed.''' The reality is that women are taken advantage of but '''men are taken advantage of as well'''. Rape is not one way and too often men are embarressed to admit being pressured into sexual situations because of their gender expectations. Roiphe's generalizing views are not really important when you take rape cases individually, because it's not as simple as "I went on a date and it resulted in sex and it was his fault because I was helpless." Not everyone lived through the same "date rape" situation and if they perceived they had been violated by another then their word should stand. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Meredith brings up a good point. This is one situation where the sexual double standard actually hurts men. If a guy wakes up the next morning and realizes he slept with someone he did not want to, all he can really call it is a mistake. If a guy woke up and claimed that a girl raped him he would be laughed at (at least by the gentleman i know). '''I think now-a-days the biggest problem concerning date rape has to be alcohol''', i bet very rarely does a sober date rape incident occur. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Elizabeth, Meredith and Landon all bring up excellent points. The article did put me off a bit. Date rape education (and repoting) should be encouraged. I don't think women "like" to report being raped. I just read testimony in the paper yesterday from a girl at Annapolis that was raped by a fellow cadet and you could feel her pain coming out. '''I think rape is likely still very much an underreported crime.''' Landon's point about alcohol likely being involved quite often in date rape situations (especially on campuses) is a good one. - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
== Christine Hoff Sommers, “Who Stole Feminism?” – 1994 ==<br />
'''"What has real feminism to do with sitting around in circles talking about our feelings and menstruation?" HAHAHA. First of all, I'd like to say that Ms. Hoff seems a little bitter about the way women's studies classes are being taught. That said, I think she does raise a valid concern. Most people today (women and men alike) hear the word "feminist" and a negative connotation is automatically thrown with it.''' Forget the fact that you do not have to be a bra-burning, man-hating, same-sex-loving hippie to be a feminist. Forget the fact that you can be a strong, independent, normal girl and be a feminist. Instead, most people hear "feminist" and automatically throw that first connotation right onto it, and men who admit to being feminists are normally mocked which is a shame. Unlike our dear author, I thought the rules that one class presents to it's students at the beginning of the semester was a fantastic idea. It forces the student to enter the class with an open mind and realize that feminism was a movement fighting oppression just like most other movements. One has to go into the class and acknowledge that oppression exists and that you have to respect your classmate's rights. I disagree with her statement that "anything said in the classroom should be repeatable outside." Yes, I believe that students should not be ashamed to speak their opinion, but when discussing such a tough topic, the fact that someone is voicing their opinion should be enough. If they don't want that repeated outside the walls of their classroom, they shouldn't have to worry about it. I believe it teaches students to respect and trust one another. '''To be honest, our dear Ms. Hoff kind of bugged me.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== United States v. Virginia (1996), “Equal Protection Under the Law” [VMI case] – 1996 ==<br />
'''The Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia is probably the case that I am most passionate about because it literally hits home.''' I was born and raised in Lexington, home of Virginia Military Institute, and both my father and my brother graduated from VMI. Hearing the stories my dad tells about the Old Corps and witnessing my brother going through Hell Week and the Ratline, I came to understand how physically, mentally, emotionally, and academically demanding VMI is...or once was. Even though I was all of ten years old when this case was decided, I was against VMI being forced to admit women. I had a feeling that things would only become worse...and I was right. For the past two summers, I have gone to VMI for summer school, (which you do not have to be a cadet to attend) and I have taken classes with some of the female cadets that do attend VMI. I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest woman in the world, but in a freshman level World History class that I took, we were asked to read aloud from the textbook, and honest to God, these girls could barely read! Not only that, but many of them were obviously not in top physical condition. I always heard my brother talking about how horrible the "shedets" were, but now I saw it with my own eyes. Because of United States v. Virginia, VMI was basically forced to lower its standards and accept any female applicants, regardless of their scholastic aptitude or physical prowess. Granted, I do know a select few female cadets who do exceed the academic and physical qualifications that the school lays out, and they have risen to prominent positions in the Corps, but an overwhelming majority of female cadets are not like this. '''So which is worse - not having females at a state supported school that has been an all-male school since its inception, or having to significantly lower standards of acceptance just so sub-par females can attend the school in the name of equality?''' VMI has had to make so many changes and sacrifices in order for women to attend. Barracks had to be renovated so that females could live there, and traditions like Hell Week, sweat parties, and other Ratline activities had to be modified to accommodate women. If the women who attended VMI after the case was decided really wanted things to be equal, then they would have attended the school under the rules of the Old Corps. They did not. Even with the relaxed physical and academic regulations for women, out of the approximately one hundred women who start the Ratline in August, probably only twenty have what it takes to make it through Hell Week, and the numbers tend to diminish after that. The fact that VMI has been forced to lower its standards to accommodate females has really lowered its reputation in the minds of both alumni and current cadets. It is not the same school my father went to, and now he jokingly says that the VMI my brother attended was a country club. '''The men that attend VMI today have been forced to sacrifice the experiences that the alumni had in the Old Corps...how is that for unequal?''' -Marilyn<br />
<br />
== Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, “A Third Wave Feminist Manifesta” – 2000 ==<br />
'''I LOVED the Third Wave Feminist Manifesta. To me, that is what feminism is all about, and that is what women today should be striving for. This is a manifesta for feminists our age and I believe that every point they raise is important. There is nothing outrageous about any of their plans and, in my opinion and as cheesy as this sounds, the list looks to make the world a better place for women. Everything from Point number 1 about outing unacknowledged feminists to point number 13 about passing the Equal Rights Amendment is important (one I love being point number 10 because I hate the demeaning nicknames 12 year olds use for each other these days.) It's a well thought out manifesta and it's kind of scary how much this applies to us. They're talking to our generation and it's just weird to see where the feminist movement has gone since the second wave movement in the 1960s and 1970s.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Bunch, “Global Feminism” – 1995 [at the UN Beijing Women’s Conference] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua, “The Borderlands” – 1987 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow, the head chef of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City doesn't seem to be that prestigious, if Velma James's 1976 photograph "A Day in the Kitchen" means anything. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It was kind of strange seeing the photo of Marion Jones in the book.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
Must have been strange being a Stanford graduate with a degree in psychology and being asked to go to charm school.--Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_14_Questions/Comments328--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T10:17:51Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Anita Hill, “A Woman of Conscience” – 1991 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching comments ==<br />
<br />
I just have a general comment. '''It was surprising to me how recent some of these essays were dated. I guess I never thought of this time period as very relevant or active for women's rights... because I guess it is!''' I mean I would definitely describe myself as a feminists, but I guess I kind of feel that in this day and age... '''doesn't every women in my age bracket feel like a feminist? Are there actually people in the younger generation today that are advocating for women to be defined by their role of mother and that is it?''' I think it is great if a women chooses to stay home with her family, but really i just think ti is great if a women chooses whatever makes her happy, no matter what that is. Do all people in this generation not feel this way?- Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
To answer Cat's question, no not everyone in this generation feels that way. There are still debutants in the South who go to school to find a husband and take classes to be good housewives. '''I also had some girls on my floor freshman year who were forming a housewives club to learn how to cook and clean and be good housewives.''' - Chrisitne W.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----------------------------------<br />
MP, 459-469, 506-524<br />
<br />
== Roe v. Wade Decision (both Blackmun’s majority ruling and White’s dissent). ==<br />
I'll take the first whack, since nobody else is touching this yet. First let me say, that a woman's body is her own and should be fully respected. Justice Blackmun mentions the 14th Amendment not recognizing a fetus as a person. This is technically and legally correct. That being said, technology now gives us more information, which perhaps can make choices for women even more difficult. The abortion argument has centered, for quite some time, on one question: When does life begin? At conception, when a fetus is considered viable (22-24 weeks approximately) or at full term. This has been the subject of much debate. The most difficult part of the equation is the inherent EMOTION that will always be involved in this debate, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. ''' A big part ot the problem also is the extreme rhetoric used by both sides''' - example. - Pro-lifers screaming "baby Killers" at Planned Parenhood workers; Pro-choice women insisting that their bodies are essentially theirs and theirs alone, even though a 20 week old fetus is kicking her belly, and a 30 week old fetus can make her foot or hand visible on a mother's belly! Unfortunately, common sense in America rarely prevails. RU 486 is still a restricted drug. A pregnancy terminated in the first several weeks, I have no moral qualms with. However, I have to confess to this: I have attended over a dozen fetal ultrasound sessions with my wife, at least two for each of my children, the last many because of a prenatal problem. As of our last child (2006), Ultrasound technology could detect a visible FETAL HEARTBEAT at six to seven weeks gestation. The heartrate is over 150 beats per minute, and resembles a very quickly twinkling star, or almost like a twinkle light on a Christmas tree. Sorry to get emotional, but at this point, this IS A LIFE. At least as far as my wife and I were concerned, we were then charged with the responsiblity of protecting that life however we could. For my wife, it meant taking good care of herself and refraining from alcohol and reducing caffeine intake. For me, it meant stepping up the pace on my end with housework, taking out the cat litter all the time (toxic for pregnant women) and being patient when crying jags and nesting urges kicked in for my better half. But it was all worth it! - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Phil on the first several weeks part. At that point, the fetus is really nothing but a bunch of dividing cells. '''I honestly don't know how I feel about abortion.''' I think that it is important to be able to allow women who are fatally at risk to be able to have them, but I have some issues with the way some people use and treat abortion. The main problem that I have is when people use it as a form of birth control. When my mother first started working as a nurse, a woman called for a nurse to help her out of the bathroom. She assisted the lady, and then went back to flush the toilet for her. There was a bloody fetus in the toilet bowl. Needless to say, my mother freaked out. The nurses who had been there longer told her that that woman comes in every several months and has an abortion, and that she used it as birth control. Now, I know that this is not the norm, or at least I hope not, but instead of killing the child, take the care to prevent its conception first. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== Lindsey Van Gelder reports on “Women vs. the NY Times” in Ms. in 1978. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Connaught Marshner explains what social conservatives really want, 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I found this essay really interesting. '''I was shocked by how much this women feared divorce and female independence.''' Did she honestly think that women that were still "fulfilled" without a man around and raised children without a man in the house were actually ruining society? This was written in 1988!! - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat, Marshner's opinions seem somewhat outdated today. But she also seems to be a product of Reagan and many popular opinion shifts of the 1980s. I think the increase in divorce rate as well as the family's decrease of importance "functions once served by the family are now provided by the government" brought about the resurfacing of issues like family and women's obligation to making the home a stable environment. '''I think that the issue of divorce and the effect it has on a single mother is still an issue today. But Marshner is very narrow minded by stating that traditional values work best. She is stuck in the white middle class ideal and fails to acknowledge that many successful families no longer operate by traditional manner.''' -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 ==<br />
<br />
Planned Parenthood v Casey seems to be probably the most complicated court case ever decided. I read the whole decision, not just the part in the textbook (and I've read outside readings on it), and it seems like Casey concludes two things, and then applies them in different ways. 1) Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was a correct decision, but because of ''stare decisis,'' the "rule" that the Court has to stick with what it said before; and, 2) some regulations on abortion are fine, but when they pose an undue burden to abortion they are illegal.<br />
I won't take a stance on abortion, but the ''stare decisis'' rational seems crazy to me. It seems like a few judges (including or limited to Blackmum) decided that Roe was correct, and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter decided that Roe was wrong, but the Court should uphold it lest there seem to be instability in the law. Casey acknowledges "the interest of the State in the protection of potential life" which seems to be a repudiation of Roe on all but technical grounds. It seems unjust to me to uphold a law purely because the Supreme Court isn't allowed to admit it was wrong.<br />
The undue burden standard seems somewhat rational to me, but only as a political compromise which the Court isn't supposed to do. In reading PP v Casey I can't find a single legal rationale for the undue burden standard, it seems completely arbitrary. It also seems like in many instances the Court is making law, not adjudicating it, and making it in a very vague fashion. The Court decided requirements for parental consent, informed decision, and 24 hour waiting periods were undue burdens, but spousal notification was not. Although I agree very much with at least the rational behind the last one, this sounds like something that should be debated by elected officials, not lifetime judges. <br />
Also, I think the subdecision on parental consent proves the arbitrariness of the entire undue burden standard. If parents have a complete yes/no veto option over whether an abortion can happen, it seems like that's an undue burden, yet the Court ruled it was not. The legal argument that sometimes parents' rights come before some rights doesn't work, because if that's true than the right to abortion isn't ''fundamental,'' and Roe should have been overturned. Something is wrong with the legal system when justices form alliances to carve out politically biased, legally contradictory chunks of law.<br />
I guess I don't understand why Roe v. Wade attracts so much attention these days, it seems like PP v Casey is much more relevant now, and a much more controversial (and legally questionable) decision. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Asma Gull Hasan, Pakistani-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
I learned a lot this week in the reading about "First- and Second- Generation Immigrant Women Speak of Living Inbetween Cultures," particularly about Asma Gull Hasan. I learned a great deal about the Muslim culture from her reading that I had only assumed before from the skewed material I've seen from the news. I did not realize that the Qur'an gave women that kind of status and honored them as much as they did. It really was an interesting reading and a learning experience at the same time! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kyoko Mori, Japanese-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jamala McFadden’s Story of 1990s Welfare Assistance, 2002 ==<br />
This is a "feel good story". I love hearing about women beating the odds,for an education, with children no less. '''Welfare made a difference in McFadden's life because she had drive and ambition and used government assistance to better her life. This is what assistance if for. Too often we hear of people misusing welfare therefore giving a stereotype to its recipients.''' McFadden spoke of the changes made in the welfare system while she was still in college. She said she was lucky to be "grandfathered" in. I do feel that daycare assistance should be offered to women attending college. To me, this would be money better spent than on women who have a minimum wage jobs. The thought would be like McFadden, these education seeking women would break the chain. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Rebecca Walker on the 3rd Wave, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
== Ms.Magazine on 5 rights women could lose, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
Well, this is a frightening thought, however, if this was to happen.... move over Betty Friedan. We will have to make room in the history books for a new set of radicals. This country is not ready for the "Girl Power" we all have. <br />
In all seriousness, These rights will never be taken away. Fist of all, we may just have our first women President in office. There are too many women in powerful positions to loose these five rights Ms. Magazines speaks of. People such as Hillary Clinton, my mother-in-law, Dr. M and myself would not take women take a step back. Before taking this class, I really had no idea how far we've come....We've come too far to go back--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
'''The problem with Nikole's statement is that the Supreme Court bases their decisions on how they interpret the Constitution, and not public opinion. I agree that there would be great public outcry if women did lose their rights to reproductive privacy, affirmative action, protection against gender-based discrimination, family and medical leave, and quality health-care services, but that wouldn't stop the court's decision, nor would it over-rule or overturn it.''' So I do believe that there is a danger to lose such rights depending upon the views of the Justices and their rulings in future cases. I also believe that it is unlikely that the last four will be lost soon, but the '''Roe v. Wade is extremely controversial, and may be overturned.''' The current administration is certainly against it, but then, the current administration is also about to leave. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
I agree with Nikole, we have gone too far to go back now. I don't see how we could possibly lose any of these rights, I think that too many people would put up a fight if it were to happen. It amazed me at how close these Supreme Court decision were to going the other way. At this time I don't see how it could be possible for someone to not allow a women to take leave for a new baby or to care for a sick family member. At the same time all of this is a little scary that with just a change is members of the Supreme Court and a new case brought forth all of this could change. I just hope that I never have to see the day. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Well, I think that some of these rights are endanger (if that is the word for it). I mean, I am not sure how I feel about it, but I think there is an agreement to made both for and against Affirmative Action and Protection Against Gender-Based Discrimination. Will society ever reach such a progressive point that we won't need separate laws? If so... when? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
As far as gender based discrimination goes I read an interesting article about 6 months ago (of which i do not remember all the specifics) about how dental and medical schools in North Carolina were trying to seperate themselves from the public funded university and become private, so that they would not be controlled by qoutas set by the state. The reason they want to move away from these qoutas is so they don't have to accept as many women to their schools. '''I believe their reasoning was that professional women tend to work on average less than 15 years, while men work on average over 40 years. Apparently because of the high number of women that had been accepted to the dental and medical schools in the state, North Carolina had a shortage of dentists.''' Just something to think about - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Also, I think the other rights will remain protected. Men benefit from most of these rights as much as the women do. I am sure there would be plenty of distraught men if the right to sexual privacy got taken away. Also the rights dealing with familial leave and and quality health services would seem to help men just as much as the women. '''The affirmative action and the gender based discrimination rights are the only two that men have nothing to gain (from a selfish point of view) from.''' --Landon Davis<br />
<br />
'''I disagree with Landon on his point that men have nothing to gain on the affirmative action point. Example: UMW. We have a skewed gender ratio in our student population, something like 70% female to 30% male. The school is actively trying to get more male students, so that if they're looking at two students who have the same GPA and SAT scores, they're probably more likely to choose the male student over the female.''' It annoyed me when I was waiting to hear if I got accepted to Mary Wash that a guy in my class asked if I had gotten in yet, because he had. When I said I hadn't heard yet, he told me that because he was a guy, he was more likely to get in than me anyway. I got my acceptance letter later that week, but it really made me mad to hear him say that. The fact that he was smirking at me while saying it probably didn't help. So affirmative action doesn't mean that men have nothing to gain. Sometimes they do gain benefits. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== US, 565-586 – Rebecca Tsosie, “Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Female Identity.”—1988 ==<br />
Prior to reading Rebecca Tsosie's essay "Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Feminine Identity," I had never known Native American literature to be so profoundly developed. After reading the article, I definitely have a deep respect for the Native American literature genre. Maybe I will read some of it someday.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Like Justin, I too never realized just how developed the Native American literature was... and it feels silly for it to just now be dawning on me from the stories I have read related to Native Americans and the stories, songs, poems, et cetera that were mentioned in the stories/articles. I wonder why we don't have more of the Native American literature in public school... we seem to have so much in the way of English and American.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin, I never realized the extent of Native American literature out there. I have read some picture books that were designed to teach lessons to children, but other than that it never really occurred to me to look to see what else was there. '''I also too was curious as to why we don't see more of this genre of literature in schools. We have so many varieties of literature in the schools, why not include a few more?''' --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
“Changing Women…” by Rebecca Tsosie discusses the stereotypes that have been created about Indian women through literature and the media. On page 567 she states that '''“The princess/squaw dichotomy does not even approach the historical realities of Indian women…the primary factor in perceptions of both European women and Indian women became their definition in terms of their relationship with males.” I see her point, but it’s not something that’s special to Indian women. Stereotypes are developed and portrayed for almost any other type of way you can classify a person.''' In one of the first few weeks of class we read about how the views of Spanish-Mexican women were stereotyped and romanticized through the image that Barceló created for herself… --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MAW, Chapters 11-13<br />
<br />
== Cathy Tuley, “Clerical Workers Unite,” 1976. ==<br />
'''Cathy Tuley's involvement in organizing clerical workers helped her personal development by becoming more assertive and self-reliant in the workplace.''' She refers to utilizing this new found assertiveness in her personal life saying "Sometimes it's kind of rough when you do that to your husband! 'Give me the fact,' you know. 'Prove what you just said.'" '''This made me think that their was a duality that women had to play between work and home. In work she could be somewhat assertive (depending on her position), and in the home she was expected to remain a subservient role to the man of the house.'''--LisaM<br />
<br />
This piece had some parallels to my own work experience. '''So many workers, whether it is in the public school system of northern Virginia or in the constraints of a company like Sodexho, are not aware of their rights. ''' A '''worker does not have to be in the clerical field to experience mistreatment and abuse of power by their bosses. But from what I can tell, so many workers are so afraid that they will lose their job, that they don't protest, they don't try to find out more about their rights,and thus are stuck in an unhappy situation.''' I am glad there has been women like Cathy, and although this piece is from over 30 years ago, things have not changed that much. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Crystal Lee Sutton, “The Real ‘Norma Rae’ Tells Her Story,” 1986. ==<br />
<br />
Reading "The Real 'Norma Rae' Tells her Story" by Crystal Lee Sutton sure does bring back memories. I remember the first time I dealt with someone like that and coming up with well-reasoned arguments and everything in an attempt to persuade them. It's weird, when someone is not doing what they are supposed to do, why would they actually extend to you common courtesies like honesty. It really doesn't make any sense.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I think it was great that the man JB Younts was so supportive for her to go to the Union meeting and possible join. It seems that the more support Lee got the more she fought for the Union. Did many women make a similar stand to how Lee did?''' –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
'''I loved this essay. That certainly was a plucky lady. It's well written in a way that, I could almost picture the Big Bossman, grossly overweight, puffing a cigar, trying to intimidate her with his Southern drawl. I can cast his part! She stood up to him, and then had the guts to stand up on a table with a "Union" sign! Cool! ''' Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
I think was a very powerful piece, that really drew attention to the fact that even though women had made strides in labor laws via federal legislation, there were some places where such things didn't matter. By the way the Wagner Act was in place in 1935, but in 1973 unions were still outlawed in most southern companies. As was the way with segregation - the south and their notion of states rights - bah! And it took 5 years for Norma Rae to get her job back, after losing it only by acting within her Constitutional rights? '''I wonder how labor laws are in the South today.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Susan Eisenberg, “Hard-Hatted Women,” 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I thought the "Hard-hatted Women" essay in MAW was amazing! '''To learn that she became an electrician and managed to hide her pregnancy for 6 months before finally going on maternity-type leaving was just incredible!''' I was sad that she had a miscarriage, but was really impressed with how her co-workers supported her. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I understand fully how Eisenberg felt. I found out I was pregnant with my my second son, Nathan, the week before 9/11. We lived in the NJ/NY area at the time and EVERYONE was in fear of loosing their jobs. '''My fear went a step further thinking if anyone would loose their jobs it would be me. I kept my pregnancy to myself for a while.''' Then I got over my new hormonal state and dared anyone to discriminate against me. Unlike Eisenberg, I was not in the construction industry and It was 2002. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I appreciate your comment Nicole. This lady was very impressive. I can only empathize with your fears. '''Imagine how she must have felt, a pregnant woman on a construction site in the late 1970s? It's good that she did foster some better relationships with co-workers during subsequent pregnancies. Some of the insensitve remarks from her male co-workers were really nasty, but not surprising to me.''' I worked in trades and roofing some years ago. The thing to remember about men, is that at the end of the day, most of us are insecure little boys who still like to talk about sounds that emanate from our bodies, watch the Three Stooges hit each other with hard objects and laugh out loud, and still like to gawk and make immature noises at attractive women who walk by a work site... we really can't help ourselves as to our simple-mindedness in these areas and really don't mean anything by it. - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
== Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, “Organizing the Farm Workers,” 1980 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Johnnie Tillmon, “Women on Welfare,” 1972 ==<br />
The movie "Claudine" starring James Earl Jones and Diahann Carroll presents some of the issues raised in "Women on Welfare" by Johnnie Tillmon. When I saw it a few years ago, I remember thinking about how typically 70's it seemed. True it was released in '74, but what I mean is that it seemed to depict exactly what it meant to be black in the 1970's. Has anyone else seen it?--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I do not agree with the A.F.D.C that if a man is in the house, then the family cannot be supplied by welfare. As Johnnie stated, the man could not have a job and be living in the house; therefore he still cannot support his children. Welfare should be for any family that is financial unstable. Has much of the welfare requirements changed since then?''' <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"Welfare is a basic right of citizenship," and "housewives should get a legally determined percentage of their husbands income"????? They call this SOCIALISM. '''While acknowledging that our free-market ideology creates many inequities, these aren't answers either!''' Ms. Tillman obviously was not an economics major. It's like you guys on campus trying to get a living wage for the groundskeepers. Nice sentiment, won't work too well. Do you understand, that '''if everyone gets paid a LIVING WAGE for every job, then inflation kicks in, and the value of your $35,000 per year entry-level jobs after you graduate is NIL.''' Do you really believe its fair, as many are suggesting, that the UMW groundskeepers, janitorial staff, Johnnie Tillman's housewives, and everyone else, now would get a federally mandated minimum wage above the poverty line, say, $30,000 for a family of four? How do you feel now about working to get a degree and only earning a fraction more? Might as well have skipped college! - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
'''Phil has a point, not all of Johnnie's points were practical, but I just liked her. ''' I liked her spirit and she made some very good arguments against the common myths of welfare, such as "having babies for profit is a lie that only men could make up and only men could believe." Unfortunately like most things, the people that are quick to condemn it are the people who don't understand it. '''And as Johnnie said, most of the people at that time in the country receiving welfare were women. Johnnie also addressed a large perception in this country that people on welfare are lazy, and they should just get a job and stop free riding off the hard earned money of other Americans, but as she effectively pointed out, sometimes, they just can't. Sometimes you just need a little help, and as a citizen, it is the government's job to ensure every citizen's welfare, no pun intended.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Mariah Burton Nelson, “Sex and Sports” – 1994 ==<br />
'''I realize it is the point of the view of the author, but I honestly never thought there were so many lesbians in women sports leagues. I just never associated the two.''' Sure, I've heard other people associate women sports stars and lesbianism, but I never took them seriously. Wow, that's interesting.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I too was surprised to learn about how many women in sports were actually lesbians in this article. I had never heard anything ever reported on it. I did know that women fought hard to get recognition like the men did in their sorts. I remember watching a show on the women's US soccer team and how they fought for better pay like the male US soccer team as well as how Mia Hamm (sp?) was the one who helped them get that recoginition by doing the Pert shampoo commercials. '''Even when I think about it today, how many womens sports are actually on TV, I can think of plenty of male sports, like football, baseball, basketball, but women the only one or two I can think of is golf, and I think basketball, I could be wrong on that one though.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
'''This did not surprise me at all,''' I know of many female athletes that are lesbians. It was something that growing up with a sister in sports that my family really started to hear of all the lesbians out there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was also not surprised by this article. I think the reason most people are shocked by this information is because women sports are not covered to the same extent that men's sports are. '''Professional male athletes are idolized and hero-worshiped so when they are homosexual it becomes a really big deal. Professional female athletes however are no where near as popular so their sexuality is not as big a factor.''' - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the introduction to this article it talked about how mens' sports receive 92% of all TV coverage and 81% of all newspaper coverage. The tone of the article seemed to suggest that this was in some way unfair, or that it was somehow based in sexism. '''Really, I think this has nothing to do with sexism. Male sports just sell better, from my experience they are more exciting to watch, and they obviously draw a larger audience of both male and female viewers alike. So I think that this is based more in business sense than it is in sexism.''' -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
== Marissa Navarro, “Becoming La Mujer” – 1998 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Mairs, “Women and Disabilities” – 1986 ==<br />
I found the Why me? Why not? portion of "Women and Disabilities" by Nancy Mairs to be fairly interesting. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found myself able to relate to this reading because when I was in middle school my Mom was diagnosed with MS. And I honestly have to say that if my mom hadn't been my hero before, she definitely is now. However, '''unlike Nancy Mairs my mother would never call herself a cripple, or at least I've never heard her do so, and I believe that this is largely because of the fact that the term cripple makes it sound like you can't do something, and lord help you if you ever tell my mother she can't do something.''' So I think that one of the reasons that this story stood out to me the most is because I've seen this first hand, yes my Mom can't do half the things she used to be able to do, but she refuses to let it depress her, she's always fighting to keep going and keep walking, but at the same time she does face things that others don't, such as a difficulty getting up and down stairs, which makes it hard for her to do some of the things she used to do. '''Though I did find it interesting that disabilities weren't talked about much until the 80s.''' -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
== Abra Fortune Chernik, “The Voice of an Anorexic” – 1995 ==<br />
<br />
'''This story really saddened me, because of how this girl viewed her self for so long'''. I was just glad that it had a happy ending, and that she was lucky enough to have survived as long as she did with this disease. This article just goes to prove that every time period through out the history of women there is an expected stereotype that is portrayed in culture and especially media like for this woman. For example during WWII media portrayed women as working to help to the counry but as soon as the men returned home they were happy to go back to being house wives, which in many cases wasn't true. For Abra Chernik, magazines of pretty skinny models was the new portrait of women, and '''often still is today.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eve Ensler, “The Vagina Monologues” – 1997 ==<br />
I have heard of "the Vagina Monologues" and I've even seen parts of it, but I never realized how much Ensler had actually been through herself. Being raped when you're such a young girl is traumatic and the fact that she took that and turned it into something positive is empowering. ''' And I agree with her and her theory about the word "vagina." Even today people have a hard time saying the actual word when referencing female (and male) genatalia and they usually use other words or nicknames. It's kind of sad, actually, that even after having sexual education classes and making sure that students today know the parts of the body, people are still so scared to use the real words.''' Yes, there are publications and television shows and broadway plays that occasionally use the real words, but if you listen to those scripts as well and read those articles you'll notice that other words or phrases normally replace the actual word (unless it's a medical journal, of course.) That's where slang starts. It just goes to show, I guess, that some mind sets never change. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This really isn't a salient point, but I think it's all due to the fact that our country was founded by a bunch of prude puritans. :) - Sarah<br />
<br />
Sorry I'm a little playful this week, but when Ms. Ensler mentions that her vagina represents her "second heart," I can only hope that some of the proceeds of her provacative and very popular script is going to a therapist. '''In the sake of fair play,''' when will UMW hold a PENIS Week, or "P" week? After all, I think the school is about 30% guys. I wonder what penises would say to one another. Would they drink beer and watch sports like the rest of us? - Phil Novalski. (On a serious note - her cause is a great one. PN.)<br />
<br />
== Susan Faludi, “The Backlash Against Feminism” – 1991 ==<br />
I thought it was interesting to read “The Backlash against Feminism” by Susan Faludi. '''In it, she points out that even though politicians and the media are continually boasting that women have indeed reached equality and every opportunity is open to them, there is another front that these people are overlooking, and that is emotional. Women still face continual pressure by the media to conform to what is expected of them. As a result there are increasing stories, such as the one by Abra Chernik, of “stress-induced disorders.”''' It seems as though we are now entering a time where''' ''politics may not influence a woman’s limitations in society as much as popular culture.''''' --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Anita Hill, “A Woman of Conscience” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I chose to write on this topic because after I read Anita Hill's testimony, I asked myself how this would affect my vote if I had one. I'm torn, because it seems like it should be impossible to elect someone to the Supreme Court who is guilty of serial sexual harassment, but at the same time, it seems wrong to deny a candidacy based on entirely non-falsifiable testimony. My gut says Anita Hill was right, and that seems to be supported by outside sources (such as a Hill-basher who later admitted he was lying, labeling himself "part of the Republican propaganda machine" and a "Conservative hitman"), but in other situations, how do you make a decision like this? -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Katie Roiphe, “Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic?” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I had mixed feelings about this reading. '''I had never thought that the very concept of date rape could enforce the traditional stereotyped sexual roles that women always had of being the ones who don't want sex when men did. However, I also feel like Katie Roiphe, while she has good points, ignores the possibility that some of these women really didn't want sex with these men and instead she seems to have the idea that these women were using the cry of rape to excuse their sexual behaviour.''' While in some cases this might be true, I highly doubt this is the majority. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Frankly this reading upset me and I disagree with Roiphe. '''I don't think that society or women use the term rape too lightly.''' I do think that '''cultural ideals do send messages to women that they shouldn't act sexual and when they do they should be ashamed of their actions. I believe that this is the issue that really needs to be addressed.''' The reality is that women are taken advantage of but '''men are taken advantage of as well'''. Rape is not one way and too often men are embarressed to admit being pressured into sexual situations because of their gender expectations. Roiphe's generalizing views are not really important when you take rape cases individually, because it's not as simple as "I went on a date and it resulted in sex and it was his fault because I was helpless." Not everyone lived through the same "date rape" situation and if they perceived they had been violated by another then their word should stand. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Meredith brings up a good point. This is one situation where the sexual double standard actually hurts men. If a guy wakes up the next morning and realizes he slept with someone he did not want to, all he can really call it is a mistake. If a guy woke up and claimed that a girl raped him he would be laughed at (at least by the gentleman i know). '''I think now-a-days the biggest problem concerning date rape has to be alcohol''', i bet very rarely does a sober date rape incident occur. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Elizabeth, Meredith and Landon all bring up excellent points. The article did put me off a bit. Date rape education (and repoting) should be encouraged. I don't think women "like" to report being raped. I just read testimony in the paper yesterday from a girl at Annapolis that was raped by a fellow cadet and you could feel her pain coming out. '''I think rape is likely still very much an underreported crime.''' Landon's point about alcohol likely being involved quite often in date rape situations (especially on campuses) is a good one. - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
== Christine Hoff Sommers, “Who Stole Feminism?” – 1994 ==<br />
'''"What has real feminism to do with sitting around in circles talking about our feelings and menstruation?" HAHAHA. First of all, I'd like to say that Ms. Hoff seems a little bitter about the way women's studies classes are being taught. That said, I think she does raise a valid concern. Most people today (women and men alike) hear the word "feminist" and a negative connotation is automatically thrown with it.''' Forget the fact that you do not have to be a bra-burning, man-hating, same-sex-loving hippie to be a feminist. Forget the fact that you can be a strong, independent, normal girl and be a feminist. Instead, most people hear "feminist" and automatically throw that first connotation right onto it, and men who admit to being feminists are normally mocked which is a shame. Unlike our dear author, I thought the rules that one class presents to it's students at the beginning of the semester was a fantastic idea. It forces the student to enter the class with an open mind and realize that feminism was a movement fighting oppression just like most other movements. One has to go into the class and acknowledge that oppression exists and that you have to respect your classmate's rights. I disagree with her statement that "anything said in the classroom should be repeatable outside." Yes, I believe that students should not be ashamed to speak their opinion, but when discussing such a tough topic, the fact that someone is voicing their opinion should be enough. If they don't want that repeated outside the walls of their classroom, they shouldn't have to worry about it. I believe it teaches students to respect and trust one another. '''To be honest, our dear Ms. Hoff kind of bugged me.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== United States v. Virginia (1996), “Equal Protection Under the Law” [VMI case] – 1996 ==<br />
'''The Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia is probably the case that I am most passionate about because it literally hits home.''' I was born and raised in Lexington, home of Virginia Military Institute, and both my father and my brother graduated from VMI. Hearing the stories my dad tells about the Old Corps and witnessing my brother going through Hell Week and the Ratline, I came to understand how physically, mentally, emotionally, and academically demanding VMI is...or once was. Even though I was all of ten years old when this case was decided, I was against VMI being forced to admit women. I had a feeling that things would only become worse...and I was right. For the past two summers, I have gone to VMI for summer school, (which you do not have to be a cadet to attend) and I have taken classes with some of the female cadets that do attend VMI. I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest woman in the world, but in a freshman level World History class that I took, we were asked to read aloud from the textbook, and honest to God, these girls could barely read! Not only that, but many of them were obviously not in top physical condition. I always heard my brother talking about how horrible the "shedets" were, but now I saw it with my own eyes. Because of United States v. Virginia, VMI was basically forced to lower its standards and accept any female applicants, regardless of their scholastic aptitude or physical prowess. Granted, I do know a select few female cadets who do exceed the academic and physical qualifications that the school lays out, and they have risen to prominent positions in the Corps, but an overwhelming majority of female cadets are not like this. '''So which is worse - not having females at a state supported school that has been an all-male school since its inception, or having to significantly lower standards of acceptance just so sub-par females can attend the school in the name of equality?''' VMI has had to make so many changes and sacrifices in order for women to attend. Barracks had to be renovated so that females could live there, and traditions like Hell Week, sweat parties, and other Ratline activities had to be modified to accommodate women. If the women who attended VMI after the case was decided really wanted things to be equal, then they would have attended the school under the rules of the Old Corps. They did not. Even with the relaxed physical and academic regulations for women, out of the approximately one hundred women who start the Ratline in August, probably only twenty have what it takes to make it through Hell Week, and the numbers tend to diminish after that. The fact that VMI has been forced to lower its standards to accommodate females has really lowered its reputation in the minds of both alumni and current cadets. It is not the same school my father went to, and now he jokingly says that the VMI my brother attended was a country club. '''The men that attend VMI today have been forced to sacrifice the experiences that the alumni had in the Old Corps...how is that for unequal?''' -Marilyn<br />
<br />
== Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, “A Third Wave Feminist Manifesta” – 2000 ==<br />
'''I LOVED the Third Wave Feminist Manifesta. To me, that is what feminism is all about, and that is what women today should be striving for. This is a manifesta for feminists our age and I believe that every point they raise is important. There is nothing outrageous about any of their plans and, in my opinion and as cheesy as this sounds, the list looks to make the world a better place for women. Everything from Point number 1 about outing unacknowledged feminists to point number 13 about passing the Equal Rights Amendment is important (one I love being point number 10 because I hate the demeaning nicknames 12 year olds use for each other these days.) It's a well thought out manifesta and it's kind of scary how much this applies to us. They're talking to our generation and it's just weird to see where the feminist movement has gone since the second wave movement in the 1960s and 1970s.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Bunch, “Global Feminism” – 1995 [at the UN Beijing Women’s Conference] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua, “The Borderlands” – 1987 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow, the head chef of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City doesn't seem to be that prestigious, if Velma James's 1976 photograph "A Day in the Kitchen" means anything. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It was kind of strange seeing the photo of Marion Jones in the book.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
Must have been strange being a Stanford graduate with a degree in psychology and being asked to go to charm school.--Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_14_Questions/Comments328--Week 14 Questions/Comments2008-04-24T09:56:55Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching comments ==<br />
<br />
I just have a general comment. '''It was surprising to me how recent some of these essays were dated. I guess I never thought of this time period as very relevant or active for women's rights... because I guess it is!''' I mean I would definitely describe myself as a feminists, but I guess I kind of feel that in this day and age... '''doesn't every women in my age bracket feel like a feminist? Are there actually people in the younger generation today that are advocating for women to be defined by their role of mother and that is it?''' I think it is great if a women chooses to stay home with her family, but really i just think ti is great if a women chooses whatever makes her happy, no matter what that is. Do all people in this generation not feel this way?- Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
To answer Cat's question, no not everyone in this generation feels that way. There are still debutants in the South who go to school to find a husband and take classes to be good housewives. '''I also had some girls on my floor freshman year who were forming a housewives club to learn how to cook and clean and be good housewives.''' - Chrisitne W.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
----------------------------------<br />
MP, 459-469, 506-524<br />
<br />
== Roe v. Wade Decision (both Blackmun’s majority ruling and White’s dissent). ==<br />
I'll take the first whack, since nobody else is touching this yet. First let me say, that a woman's body is her own and should be fully respected. Justice Blackmun mentions the 14th Amendment not recognizing a fetus as a person. This is technically and legally correct. That being said, technology now gives us more information, which perhaps can make choices for women even more difficult. The abortion argument has centered, for quite some time, on one question: When does life begin? At conception, when a fetus is considered viable (22-24 weeks approximately) or at full term. This has been the subject of much debate. The most difficult part of the equation is the inherent EMOTION that will always be involved in this debate, whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. ''' A big part ot the problem also is the extreme rhetoric used by both sides''' - example. - Pro-lifers screaming "baby Killers" at Planned Parenhood workers; Pro-choice women insisting that their bodies are essentially theirs and theirs alone, even though a 20 week old fetus is kicking her belly, and a 30 week old fetus can make her foot or hand visible on a mother's belly! Unfortunately, common sense in America rarely prevails. RU 486 is still a restricted drug. A pregnancy terminated in the first several weeks, I have no moral qualms with. However, I have to confess to this: I have attended over a dozen fetal ultrasound sessions with my wife, at least two for each of my children, the last many because of a prenatal problem. As of our last child (2006), Ultrasound technology could detect a visible FETAL HEARTBEAT at six to seven weeks gestation. The heartrate is over 150 beats per minute, and resembles a very quickly twinkling star, or almost like a twinkle light on a Christmas tree. Sorry to get emotional, but at this point, this IS A LIFE. At least as far as my wife and I were concerned, we were then charged with the responsiblity of protecting that life however we could. For my wife, it meant taking good care of herself and refraining from alcohol and reducing caffeine intake. For me, it meant stepping up the pace on my end with housework, taking out the cat litter all the time (toxic for pregnant women) and being patient when crying jags and nesting urges kicked in for my better half. But it was all worth it! - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Phil on the first several weeks part. At that point, the fetus is really nothing but a bunch of dividing cells. '''I honestly don't know how I feel about abortion.''' I think that it is important to be able to allow women who are fatally at risk to be able to have them, but I have some issues with the way some people use and treat abortion. The main problem that I have is when people use it as a form of birth control. When my mother first started working as a nurse, a woman called for a nurse to help her out of the bathroom. She assisted the lady, and then went back to flush the toilet for her. There was a bloody fetus in the toilet bowl. Needless to say, my mother freaked out. The nurses who had been there longer told her that that woman comes in every several months and has an abortion, and that she used it as birth control. Now, I know that this is not the norm, or at least I hope not, but instead of killing the child, take the care to prevent its conception first. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== Lindsey Van Gelder reports on “Women vs. the NY Times” in Ms. in 1978. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Connaught Marshner explains what social conservatives really want, 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I found this essay really interesting. '''I was shocked by how much this women feared divorce and female independence.''' Did she honestly think that women that were still "fulfilled" without a man around and raised children without a man in the house were actually ruining society? This was written in 1988!! - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I agree with Cat, Marshner's opinions seem somewhat outdated today. But she also seems to be a product of Reagan and many popular opinion shifts of the 1980s. I think the increase in divorce rate as well as the family's decrease of importance "functions once served by the family are now provided by the government" brought about the resurfacing of issues like family and women's obligation to making the home a stable environment. '''I think that the issue of divorce and the effect it has on a single mother is still an issue today. But Marshner is very narrow minded by stating that traditional values work best. She is stuck in the white middle class ideal and fails to acknowledge that many successful families no longer operate by traditional manner.''' -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Planned Parenthood versus Casey, 1992 ==<br />
<br />
Planned Parenthood v Casey seems to be probably the most complicated court case ever decided. I read the whole decision, not just the part in the textbook (and I've read outside readings on it), and it seems like Casey concludes two things, and then applies them in different ways. 1) Roe v. Wade should be upheld, not because it was a correct decision, but because of ''stare decisis,'' the "rule" that the Court has to stick with what it said before; and, 2) some regulations on abortion are fine, but when they pose an undue burden to abortion they are illegal.<br />
I won't take a stance on abortion, but the ''stare decisis'' rational seems crazy to me. It seems like a few judges (including or limited to Blackmum) decided that Roe was correct, and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter decided that Roe was wrong, but the Court should uphold it lest there seem to be instability in the law. Casey acknowledges "the interest of the State in the protection of potential life" which seems to be a repudiation of Roe on all but technical grounds. It seems unjust to me to uphold a law purely because the Supreme Court isn't allowed to admit it was wrong.<br />
The undue burden standard seems somewhat rational to me, but only as a political compromise which the Court isn't supposed to do. In reading PP v Casey I can't find a single legal rationale for the undue burden standard, it seems completely arbitrary. It also seems like in many instances the Court is making law, not adjudicating it, and making it in a very vague fashion. The Court decided requirements for parental consent, informed decision, and 24 hour waiting periods were undue burdens, but spousal notification was not. Although I agree very much with at least the rational behind the last one, this sounds like something that should be debated by elected officials, not lifetime judges. <br />
Also, I think the subdecision on parental consent proves the arbitrariness of the entire undue burden standard. If parents have a complete yes/no veto option over whether an abortion can happen, it seems like that's an undue burden, yet the Court ruled it was not. The legal argument that sometimes parents' rights come before some rights doesn't work, because if that's true than the right to abortion isn't ''fundamental,'' and Roe should have been overturned. Something is wrong with the legal system when justices form alliances to carve out politically biased, legally contradictory chunks of law.<br />
I guess I don't understand why Roe v. Wade attracts so much attention these days, it seems like PP v Casey is much more relevant now, and a much more controversial (and legally questionable) decision. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua soeakes about her identity, 1999 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Asma Gull Hasan, Pakistani-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
I learned a lot this week in the reading about "First- and Second- Generation Immigrant Women Speak of Living Inbetween Cultures," particularly about Asma Gull Hasan. I learned a great deal about the Muslim culture from her reading that I had only assumed before from the skewed material I've seen from the news. I did not realize that the Qur'an gave women that kind of status and honored them as much as they did. It really was an interesting reading and a learning experience at the same time! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kyoko Mori, Japanese-American, 2000 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Jamala McFadden’s Story of 1990s Welfare Assistance, 2002 ==<br />
This is a "feel good story". I love hearing about women beating the odds,for an education, with children no less. '''Welfare made a difference in McFadden's life because she had drive and ambition and used government assistance to better her life. This is what assistance if for. Too often we hear of people misusing welfare therefore giving a stereotype to its recipients.''' McFadden spoke of the changes made in the welfare system while she was still in college. She said she was lucky to be "grandfathered" in. I do feel that daycare assistance should be offered to women attending college. To me, this would be money better spent than on women who have a minimum wage jobs. The thought would be like McFadden, these education seeking women would break the chain. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
== Rebecca Walker on the 3rd Wave, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
== Ms.Magazine on 5 rights women could lose, 2005 ==<br />
<br />
Well, this is a frightening thought, however, if this was to happen.... move over Betty Friedan. We will have to make room in the history books for a new set of radicals. This country is not ready for the "Girl Power" we all have. <br />
In all seriousness, These rights will never be taken away. Fist of all, we may just have our first women President in office. There are too many women in powerful positions to loose these five rights Ms. Magazines speaks of. People such as Hillary Clinton, my mother-in-law, Dr. M and myself would not take women take a step back. Before taking this class, I really had no idea how far we've come....We've come too far to go back--Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
'''The problem with Nikole's statement is that the Supreme Court bases their decisions on how they interpret the Constitution, and not public opinion. I agree that there would be great public outcry if women did lose their rights to reproductive privacy, affirmative action, protection against gender-based discrimination, family and medical leave, and quality health-care services, but that wouldn't stop the court's decision, nor would it over-rule or overturn it.''' So I do believe that there is a danger to lose such rights depending upon the views of the Justices and their rulings in future cases. I also believe that it is unlikely that the last four will be lost soon, but the '''Roe v. Wade is extremely controversial, and may be overturned.''' The current administration is certainly against it, but then, the current administration is also about to leave. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
I agree with Nikole, we have gone too far to go back now. I don't see how we could possibly lose any of these rights, I think that too many people would put up a fight if it were to happen. It amazed me at how close these Supreme Court decision were to going the other way. At this time I don't see how it could be possible for someone to not allow a women to take leave for a new baby or to care for a sick family member. At the same time all of this is a little scary that with just a change is members of the Supreme Court and a new case brought forth all of this could change. I just hope that I never have to see the day. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Well, I think that some of these rights are endanger (if that is the word for it). I mean, I am not sure how I feel about it, but I think there is an agreement to made both for and against Affirmative Action and Protection Against Gender-Based Discrimination. Will society ever reach such a progressive point that we won't need separate laws? If so... when? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
As far as gender based discrimination goes I read an interesting article about 6 months ago (of which i do not remember all the specifics) about how dental and medical schools in North Carolina were trying to seperate themselves from the public funded university and become private, so that they would not be controlled by qoutas set by the state. The reason they want to move away from these qoutas is so they don't have to accept as many women to their schools. '''I believe their reasoning was that professional women tend to work on average less than 15 years, while men work on average over 40 years. Apparently because of the high number of women that had been accepted to the dental and medical schools in the state, North Carolina had a shortage of dentists.''' Just something to think about - Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Also, I think the other rights will remain protected. Men benefit from most of these rights as much as the women do. I am sure there would be plenty of distraught men if the right to sexual privacy got taken away. Also the rights dealing with familial leave and and quality health services would seem to help men just as much as the women. '''The affirmative action and the gender based discrimination rights are the only two that men have nothing to gain (from a selfish point of view) from.''' --Landon Davis<br />
<br />
'''I disagree with Landon on his point that men have nothing to gain on the affirmative action point. Example: UMW. We have a skewed gender ratio in our student population, something like 70% female to 30% male. The school is actively trying to get more male students, so that if they're looking at two students who have the same GPA and SAT scores, they're probably more likely to choose the male student over the female.''' It annoyed me when I was waiting to hear if I got accepted to Mary Wash that a guy in my class asked if I had gotten in yet, because he had. When I said I hadn't heard yet, he told me that because he was a guy, he was more likely to get in than me anyway. I got my acceptance letter later that week, but it really made me mad to hear him say that. The fact that he was smirking at me while saying it probably didn't help. So affirmative action doesn't mean that men have nothing to gain. Sometimes they do gain benefits. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== US, 565-586 – Rebecca Tsosie, “Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Female Identity.”—1988 ==<br />
Prior to reading Rebecca Tsosie's essay "Changing Women: The Crosscurrents of American Indian Feminine Identity," I had never known Native American literature to be so profoundly developed. After reading the article, I definitely have a deep respect for the Native American literature genre. Maybe I will read some of it someday.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Like Justin, I too never realized just how developed the Native American literature was... and it feels silly for it to just now be dawning on me from the stories I have read related to Native Americans and the stories, songs, poems, et cetera that were mentioned in the stories/articles. I wonder why we don't have more of the Native American literature in public school... we seem to have so much in the way of English and American.... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin, I never realized the extent of Native American literature out there. I have read some picture books that were designed to teach lessons to children, but other than that it never really occurred to me to look to see what else was there. '''I also too was curious as to why we don't see more of this genre of literature in schools. We have so many varieties of literature in the schools, why not include a few more?''' --Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
“Changing Women…” by Rebecca Tsosie discusses the stereotypes that have been created about Indian women through literature and the media. On page 567 she states that '''“The princess/squaw dichotomy does not even approach the historical realities of Indian women…the primary factor in perceptions of both European women and Indian women became their definition in terms of their relationship with males.” I see her point, but it’s not something that’s special to Indian women. Stereotypes are developed and portrayed for almost any other type of way you can classify a person.''' In one of the first few weeks of class we read about how the views of Spanish-Mexican women were stereotyped and romanticized through the image that Barceló created for herself… --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
MAW, Chapters 11-13<br />
<br />
== Cathy Tuley, “Clerical Workers Unite,” 1976. ==<br />
'''Cathy Tuley's involvement in organizing clerical workers helped her personal development by becoming more assertive and self-reliant in the workplace.''' She refers to utilizing this new found assertiveness in her personal life saying "Sometimes it's kind of rough when you do that to your husband! 'Give me the fact,' you know. 'Prove what you just said.'" '''This made me think that their was a duality that women had to play between work and home. In work she could be somewhat assertive (depending on her position), and in the home she was expected to remain a subservient role to the man of the house.'''--LisaM<br />
<br />
This piece had some parallels to my own work experience. '''So many workers, whether it is in the public school system of northern Virginia or in the constraints of a company like Sodexho, are not aware of their rights. ''' A '''worker does not have to be in the clerical field to experience mistreatment and abuse of power by their bosses. But from what I can tell, so many workers are so afraid that they will lose their job, that they don't protest, they don't try to find out more about their rights,and thus are stuck in an unhappy situation.''' I am glad there has been women like Cathy, and although this piece is from over 30 years ago, things have not changed that much. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Crystal Lee Sutton, “The Real ‘Norma Rae’ Tells Her Story,” 1986. ==<br />
<br />
Reading "The Real 'Norma Rae' Tells her Story" by Crystal Lee Sutton sure does bring back memories. I remember the first time I dealt with someone like that and coming up with well-reasoned arguments and everything in an attempt to persuade them. It's weird, when someone is not doing what they are supposed to do, why would they actually extend to you common courtesies like honesty. It really doesn't make any sense.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I think it was great that the man JB Younts was so supportive for her to go to the Union meeting and possible join. It seems that the more support Lee got the more she fought for the Union. Did many women make a similar stand to how Lee did?''' –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
'''I loved this essay. That certainly was a plucky lady. It's well written in a way that, I could almost picture the Big Bossman, grossly overweight, puffing a cigar, trying to intimidate her with his Southern drawl. I can cast his part! She stood up to him, and then had the guts to stand up on a table with a "Union" sign! Cool! ''' Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
I think was a very powerful piece, that really drew attention to the fact that even though women had made strides in labor laws via federal legislation, there were some places where such things didn't matter. By the way the Wagner Act was in place in 1935, but in 1973 unions were still outlawed in most southern companies. As was the way with segregation - the south and their notion of states rights - bah! And it took 5 years for Norma Rae to get her job back, after losing it only by acting within her Constitutional rights? '''I wonder how labor laws are in the South today.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Susan Eisenberg, “Hard-Hatted Women,” 1988. ==<br />
<br />
I thought the "Hard-hatted Women" essay in MAW was amazing! '''To learn that she became an electrician and managed to hide her pregnancy for 6 months before finally going on maternity-type leaving was just incredible!''' I was sad that she had a miscarriage, but was really impressed with how her co-workers supported her. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I understand fully how Eisenberg felt. I found out I was pregnant with my my second son, Nathan, the week before 9/11. We lived in the NJ/NY area at the time and EVERYONE was in fear of loosing their jobs. '''My fear went a step further thinking if anyone would loose their jobs it would be me. I kept my pregnancy to myself for a while.''' Then I got over my new hormonal state and dared anyone to discriminate against me. Unlike Eisenberg, I was not in the construction industry and It was 2002. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I appreciate your comment Nicole. This lady was very impressive. I can only empathize with your fears. '''Imagine how she must have felt, a pregnant woman on a construction site in the late 1970s? It's good that she did foster some better relationships with co-workers during subsequent pregnancies. Some of the insensitve remarks from her male co-workers were really nasty, but not surprising to me.''' I worked in trades and roofing some years ago. The thing to remember about men, is that at the end of the day, most of us are insecure little boys who still like to talk about sounds that emanate from our bodies, watch the Three Stooges hit each other with hard objects and laugh out loud, and still like to gawk and make immature noises at attractive women who walk by a work site... we really can't help ourselves as to our simple-mindedness in these areas and really don't mean anything by it. - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
== Jessie Lopez De La Cruz, “Organizing the Farm Workers,” 1980 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Johnnie Tillmon, “Women on Welfare,” 1972 ==<br />
The movie "Claudine" starring James Earl Jones and Diahann Carroll presents some of the issues raised in "Women on Welfare" by Johnnie Tillmon. When I saw it a few years ago, I remember thinking about how typically 70's it seemed. True it was released in '74, but what I mean is that it seemed to depict exactly what it meant to be black in the 1970's. Has anyone else seen it?--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
'''I do not agree with the A.F.D.C that if a man is in the house, then the family cannot be supplied by welfare. As Johnnie stated, the man could not have a job and be living in the house; therefore he still cannot support his children. Welfare should be for any family that is financial unstable. Has much of the welfare requirements changed since then?''' <br />
–Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
"Welfare is a basic right of citizenship," and "housewives should get a legally determined percentage of their husbands income"????? They call this SOCIALISM. '''While acknowledging that our free-market ideology creates many inequities, these aren't answers either!''' Ms. Tillman obviously was not an economics major. It's like you guys on campus trying to get a living wage for the groundskeepers. Nice sentiment, won't work too well. Do you understand, that '''if everyone gets paid a LIVING WAGE for every job, then inflation kicks in, and the value of your $35,000 per year entry-level jobs after you graduate is NIL.''' Do you really believe its fair, as many are suggesting, that the UMW groundskeepers, janitorial staff, Johnnie Tillman's housewives, and everyone else, now would get a federally mandated minimum wage above the poverty line, say, $30,000 for a family of four? How do you feel now about working to get a degree and only earning a fraction more? Might as well have skipped college! - Phil Novalski.<br />
<br />
'''Phil has a point, not all of Johnnie's points were practical, but I just liked her. ''' I liked her spirit and she made some very good arguments against the common myths of welfare, such as "having babies for profit is a lie that only men could make up and only men could believe." Unfortunately like most things, the people that are quick to condemn it are the people who don't understand it. '''And as Johnnie said, most of the people at that time in the country receiving welfare were women. Johnnie also addressed a large perception in this country that people on welfare are lazy, and they should just get a job and stop free riding off the hard earned money of other Americans, but as she effectively pointed out, sometimes, they just can't. Sometimes you just need a little help, and as a citizen, it is the government's job to ensure every citizen's welfare, no pun intended.''' ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
== Mariah Burton Nelson, “Sex and Sports” – 1994 ==<br />
'''I realize it is the point of the view of the author, but I honestly never thought there were so many lesbians in women sports leagues. I just never associated the two.''' Sure, I've heard other people associate women sports stars and lesbianism, but I never took them seriously. Wow, that's interesting.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I too was surprised to learn about how many women in sports were actually lesbians in this article. I had never heard anything ever reported on it. I did know that women fought hard to get recognition like the men did in their sorts. I remember watching a show on the women's US soccer team and how they fought for better pay like the male US soccer team as well as how Mia Hamm (sp?) was the one who helped them get that recoginition by doing the Pert shampoo commercials. '''Even when I think about it today, how many womens sports are actually on TV, I can think of plenty of male sports, like football, baseball, basketball, but women the only one or two I can think of is golf, and I think basketball, I could be wrong on that one though.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
'''This did not surprise me at all,''' I know of many female athletes that are lesbians. It was something that growing up with a sister in sports that my family really started to hear of all the lesbians out there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was also not surprised by this article. I think the reason most people are shocked by this information is because women sports are not covered to the same extent that men's sports are. '''Professional male athletes are idolized and hero-worshiped so when they are homosexual it becomes a really big deal. Professional female athletes however are no where near as popular so their sexuality is not as big a factor.''' - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the introduction to this article it talked about how mens' sports receive 92% of all TV coverage and 81% of all newspaper coverage. The tone of the article seemed to suggest that this was in some way unfair, or that it was somehow based in sexism. '''Really, I think this has nothing to do with sexism. Male sports just sell better, from my experience they are more exciting to watch, and they obviously draw a larger audience of both male and female viewers alike. So I think that this is based more in business sense than it is in sexism.''' -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
== Marissa Navarro, “Becoming La Mujer” – 1998 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Nancy Mairs, “Women and Disabilities” – 1986 ==<br />
I found the Why me? Why not? portion of "Women and Disabilities" by Nancy Mairs to be fairly interesting. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found myself able to relate to this reading because when I was in middle school my Mom was diagnosed with MS. And I honestly have to say that if my mom hadn't been my hero before, she definitely is now. However, '''unlike Nancy Mairs my mother would never call herself a cripple, or at least I've never heard her do so, and I believe that this is largely because of the fact that the term cripple makes it sound like you can't do something, and lord help you if you ever tell my mother she can't do something.''' So I think that one of the reasons that this story stood out to me the most is because I've seen this first hand, yes my Mom can't do half the things she used to be able to do, but she refuses to let it depress her, she's always fighting to keep going and keep walking, but at the same time she does face things that others don't, such as a difficulty getting up and down stairs, which makes it hard for her to do some of the things she used to do. '''Though I did find it interesting that disabilities weren't talked about much until the 80s.''' -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
== Abra Fortune Chernik, “The Voice of an Anorexic” – 1995 ==<br />
<br />
'''This story really saddened me, because of how this girl viewed her self for so long'''. I was just glad that it had a happy ending, and that she was lucky enough to have survived as long as she did with this disease. This article just goes to prove that every time period through out the history of women there is an expected stereotype that is portrayed in culture and especially media like for this woman. For example during WWII media portrayed women as working to help to the counry but as soon as the men returned home they were happy to go back to being house wives, which in many cases wasn't true. For Abra Chernik, magazines of pretty skinny models was the new portrait of women, and '''often still is today.'''--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Eve Ensler, “The Vagina Monologues” – 1997 ==<br />
I have heard of "the Vagina Monologues" and I've even seen parts of it, but I never realized how much Ensler had actually been through herself. Being raped when you're such a young girl is traumatic and the fact that she took that and turned it into something positive is empowering. ''' And I agree with her and her theory about the word "vagina." Even today people have a hard time saying the actual word when referencing female (and male) genatalia and they usually use other words or nicknames. It's kind of sad, actually, that even after having sexual education classes and making sure that students today know the parts of the body, people are still so scared to use the real words.''' Yes, there are publications and television shows and broadway plays that occasionally use the real words, but if you listen to those scripts as well and read those articles you'll notice that other words or phrases normally replace the actual word (unless it's a medical journal, of course.) That's where slang starts. It just goes to show, I guess, that some mind sets never change. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This really isn't a salient point, but I think it's all due to the fact that our country was founded by a bunch of prude puritans. :) - Sarah<br />
<br />
Sorry I'm a little playful this week, but when Ms. Ensler mentions that her vagina represents her "second heart," I can only hope that some of the proceeds of her provacative and very popular script is going to a therapist. '''In the sake of fair play,''' when will UMW hold a PENIS Week, or "P" week? After all, I think the school is about 30% guys. I wonder what penises would say to one another. Would they drink beer and watch sports like the rest of us? - Phil Novalski. (On a serious note - her cause is a great one. PN.)<br />
<br />
== Susan Faludi, “The Backlash Against Feminism” – 1991 ==<br />
I thought it was interesting to read “The Backlash against Feminism” by Susan Faludi. '''In it, she points out that even though politicians and the media are continually boasting that women have indeed reached equality and every opportunity is open to them, there is another front that these people are overlooking, and that is emotional. Women still face continual pressure by the media to conform to what is expected of them. As a result there are increasing stories, such as the one by Abra Chernik, of “stress-induced disorders.”''' It seems as though we are now entering a time where''' ''politics may not influence a woman’s limitations in society as much as popular culture.''''' --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Anita Hill, “A Woman of Conscience” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Katie Roiphe, “Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic?” – 1991 ==<br />
<br />
I had mixed feelings about this reading. '''I had never thought that the very concept of date rape could enforce the traditional stereotyped sexual roles that women always had of being the ones who don't want sex when men did. However, I also feel like Katie Roiphe, while she has good points, ignores the possibility that some of these women really didn't want sex with these men and instead she seems to have the idea that these women were using the cry of rape to excuse their sexual behaviour.''' While in some cases this might be true, I highly doubt this is the majority. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Frankly this reading upset me and I disagree with Roiphe. '''I don't think that society or women use the term rape too lightly.''' I do think that '''cultural ideals do send messages to women that they shouldn't act sexual and when they do they should be ashamed of their actions. I believe that this is the issue that really needs to be addressed.''' The reality is that women are taken advantage of but '''men are taken advantage of as well'''. Rape is not one way and too often men are embarressed to admit being pressured into sexual situations because of their gender expectations. Roiphe's generalizing views are not really important when you take rape cases individually, because it's not as simple as "I went on a date and it resulted in sex and it was his fault because I was helpless." Not everyone lived through the same "date rape" situation and if they perceived they had been violated by another then their word should stand. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Meredith brings up a good point. This is one situation where the sexual double standard actually hurts men. If a guy wakes up the next morning and realizes he slept with someone he did not want to, all he can really call it is a mistake. If a guy woke up and claimed that a girl raped him he would be laughed at (at least by the gentleman i know). '''I think now-a-days the biggest problem concerning date rape has to be alcohol''', i bet very rarely does a sober date rape incident occur. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
Elizabeth, Meredith and Landon all bring up excellent points. The article did put me off a bit. Date rape education (and repoting) should be encouraged. I don't think women "like" to report being raped. I just read testimony in the paper yesterday from a girl at Annapolis that was raped by a fellow cadet and you could feel her pain coming out. '''I think rape is likely still very much an underreported crime.''' Landon's point about alcohol likely being involved quite often in date rape situations (especially on campuses) is a good one. - Phil Novalski<br />
<br />
== Christine Hoff Sommers, “Who Stole Feminism?” – 1994 ==<br />
'''"What has real feminism to do with sitting around in circles talking about our feelings and menstruation?" HAHAHA. First of all, I'd like to say that Ms. Hoff seems a little bitter about the way women's studies classes are being taught. That said, I think she does raise a valid concern. Most people today (women and men alike) hear the word "feminist" and a negative connotation is automatically thrown with it.''' Forget the fact that you do not have to be a bra-burning, man-hating, same-sex-loving hippie to be a feminist. Forget the fact that you can be a strong, independent, normal girl and be a feminist. Instead, most people hear "feminist" and automatically throw that first connotation right onto it, and men who admit to being feminists are normally mocked which is a shame. Unlike our dear author, I thought the rules that one class presents to it's students at the beginning of the semester was a fantastic idea. It forces the student to enter the class with an open mind and realize that feminism was a movement fighting oppression just like most other movements. One has to go into the class and acknowledge that oppression exists and that you have to respect your classmate's rights. I disagree with her statement that "anything said in the classroom should be repeatable outside." Yes, I believe that students should not be ashamed to speak their opinion, but when discussing such a tough topic, the fact that someone is voicing their opinion should be enough. If they don't want that repeated outside the walls of their classroom, they shouldn't have to worry about it. I believe it teaches students to respect and trust one another. '''To be honest, our dear Ms. Hoff kind of bugged me.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== United States v. Virginia (1996), “Equal Protection Under the Law” [VMI case] – 1996 ==<br />
'''The Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia is probably the case that I am most passionate about because it literally hits home.''' I was born and raised in Lexington, home of Virginia Military Institute, and both my father and my brother graduated from VMI. Hearing the stories my dad tells about the Old Corps and witnessing my brother going through Hell Week and the Ratline, I came to understand how physically, mentally, emotionally, and academically demanding VMI is...or once was. Even though I was all of ten years old when this case was decided, I was against VMI being forced to admit women. I had a feeling that things would only become worse...and I was right. For the past two summers, I have gone to VMI for summer school, (which you do not have to be a cadet to attend) and I have taken classes with some of the female cadets that do attend VMI. I will be the first to admit that I am not the smartest woman in the world, but in a freshman level World History class that I took, we were asked to read aloud from the textbook, and honest to God, these girls could barely read! Not only that, but many of them were obviously not in top physical condition. I always heard my brother talking about how horrible the "shedets" were, but now I saw it with my own eyes. Because of United States v. Virginia, VMI was basically forced to lower its standards and accept any female applicants, regardless of their scholastic aptitude or physical prowess. Granted, I do know a select few female cadets who do exceed the academic and physical qualifications that the school lays out, and they have risen to prominent positions in the Corps, but an overwhelming majority of female cadets are not like this. '''So which is worse - not having females at a state supported school that has been an all-male school since its inception, or having to significantly lower standards of acceptance just so sub-par females can attend the school in the name of equality?''' VMI has had to make so many changes and sacrifices in order for women to attend. Barracks had to be renovated so that females could live there, and traditions like Hell Week, sweat parties, and other Ratline activities had to be modified to accommodate women. If the women who attended VMI after the case was decided really wanted things to be equal, then they would have attended the school under the rules of the Old Corps. They did not. Even with the relaxed physical and academic regulations for women, out of the approximately one hundred women who start the Ratline in August, probably only twenty have what it takes to make it through Hell Week, and the numbers tend to diminish after that. The fact that VMI has been forced to lower its standards to accommodate females has really lowered its reputation in the minds of both alumni and current cadets. It is not the same school my father went to, and now he jokingly says that the VMI my brother attended was a country club. '''The men that attend VMI today have been forced to sacrifice the experiences that the alumni had in the Old Corps...how is that for unequal?''' -Marilyn<br />
<br />
== Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards, “A Third Wave Feminist Manifesta” – 2000 ==<br />
'''I LOVED the Third Wave Feminist Manifesta. To me, that is what feminism is all about, and that is what women today should be striving for. This is a manifesta for feminists our age and I believe that every point they raise is important. There is nothing outrageous about any of their plans and, in my opinion and as cheesy as this sounds, the list looks to make the world a better place for women. Everything from Point number 1 about outing unacknowledged feminists to point number 13 about passing the Equal Rights Amendment is important (one I love being point number 10 because I hate the demeaning nicknames 12 year olds use for each other these days.) It's a well thought out manifesta and it's kind of scary how much this applies to us. They're talking to our generation and it's just weird to see where the feminist movement has gone since the second wave movement in the 1960s and 1970s.''' --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Bunch, “Global Feminism” – 1995 [at the UN Beijing Women’s Conference] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Gloria Anzaldua, “The Borderlands” – 1987 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Wow, the head chef of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City doesn't seem to be that prestigious, if Velma James's 1976 photograph "A Day in the Kitchen" means anything. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It was kind of strange seeing the photo of Marion Jones in the book.--Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
Must have been strange being a Stanford graduate with a degree in psychology and being asked to go to charm school.--Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T11:40:44Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" it is apparent that he fells that American is far more superior in terms of an army and stragetgy. I was wondering if this was on of the first times that America is realizing that they are becoming a very strong nation, and that they ahve a superior army?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" I was wonder why he goes on to describe both Genreal Taylor and General Scott. He describes General Taylor as a man who never wore a uniform and dressed for comfort and General Scott as a man who was always dressed in uniform. Why did Ulysses S. Grant find it nessary to include this in his document?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
So, in Grants Memoir, he writes, "For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas] and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger aganist a weaker nation." I take this quote to mean that Grant really did not like the idea of annexing Texas. So my question is that was he unhappy about the annexation because he was from the north, and did others from the north typicaly share this reaction or is it more of a personal issue? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
it's interesting how Grant "reagard the war, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" and he's fighting in it and how he alludes the republic to the european monarchies. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Grant compared the Mexican War to the events surrounding the Revolutionary War. He sees America as unjust for exerting their power over a weaker country because they want to "acquire more territory," which is what Britain had previously done to America. He also criticizes the Americans who colonized there for bringing slaves into the territory when the Mexican government opposed this institution. Was Grant an abolitionist? Or was he just anti-slavery as most people in the North were? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Lincoln states that he would not even consider holding a slave, yet then he continues to say that as free men, he could not admit that they were equals. Was this contradictory opinion common among Americans at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Linclon's speech, he basicly states in the third full paragraph on page 261, the Southern people are the same as Northern people in that if the rolls were reversed, each side would do the same thing as the other side. I was wondering if this statement had any negative effect on the Northern view of Linclon or any positive effect on the Southern view of Linclon? I was just curious if he recieved any feedback from the public about how he compared the two sides. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
When Lincoln comments, "These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon;..." Who is mammon? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I'm a big fan of Abraham Lincoln. He's just so cool! And I enjoyed this speech as well. He is so smart to talk to the North about the South without anger. Instead he addresses the situation with sympathy and understanding. He recognizes that even if the South wanted to stop slaver it would still be hard. He says at one point in the speech though, that he does not believe total equality between black and white. I found this interesting. I wonder if this is just a way of saying how hard it would be to get to equality. --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In response to alex, hwo could a black slave even attempt to prove himself free? He is not considered a citizen, has no rights, cannot hold any weight in court, and is a piece of property and nothign more. How exactly would a slave go about this process of proving that he was free? - Landon James<br />
<br />
Is Douglas the most dangerous type of abolitonist? One who has seen and lived the terrors of slavery and is educated enought o make solid arguments such as these. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Douglas points out the hypocritical attitude that most Americans have about slavery. He attacks the contradictions in their speech and actions by saying that "when their own [white] liberty is in question they will avail themselves of all the rulse of law which protect and defent their freedom; but when the black man's rights are in question they concede to everything for slavery and put liberty to the proof." This argument is based on the rhetoric of democracy that so many white Americans used, but refused to apply to slavery. Therefore, his arguments are very strong. I also found it interesting when we learned in class that he had white sponsors who bought his and his family's freedom after the court ruling. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
When Douglass says that,"the negro an an exception to general rules... They reserve common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I, on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." This reminds me a lot of innocent until proven guilty in our court system. Is this what Douglass is getting at? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
The very last line of the Douglass pamphlet states, "If slaveholders have ruled the American Government for the last fifty years, let the anti-slavery men rule the nation for the next fifty years." This makes me think that Douglass might be speaking to the advantages the slave states have had in terms of getting bills and legislation passed over anti-slave states. - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how he refers to slave as property and that it is their right to own slaves. This document displays how torn the states were between pro-slavery and anti-slavery because anti-slavery states would not consider owning slaves a right. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
i find it interesting that Davis is upset that the Territorial Legislature is interfering "with the rights of person or property" when he is supporting slavery which is taking away the rights of african americans. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that most slaves, upon hearing this, would disagree with Blanks. By the time this was written, the population of slaves had already developed their own culture. They had new traditions and completely different skills than would be needed in Africa. I don't believe that most slaves would want to risk cutting the ties of tradition, personal ancestral history and possibly seperation from family members. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
For Blanks to want to have a mass relocation of blacks to another place seems very brave to me. I can’t imagine it being something that was widely supported. The idea of relocation is just too broad. I wonder if there were ever any ideas of setting up a reserve of some types like what was done with the Indians for the blacks in America. Both ideas are insane, but it’s just a thought. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how John Brown used quotes from the Bible to justify his actions. He chose only quotes that support his position and completely disregarded all of the scripture that puts limitations on that. It shows that some trends in politics never die. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Just by reading the first part, the confession, it almost makes me want to think Brown is slightly unstable. If one is trying to get a mass of people to join their side of an argument, the last thing I think one would want to do was to kill others. It turns people off from your viewpoint and doesn’t help you at all. ---Virginia Stratton.</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_13_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-18T11:34:49Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War, 1885-1886 ==<br />
Ulysses S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs, 1885-1886." There are obvious discrepancies in this document because it is a memoir, but I was curious if Grant’s perceptions of the Mexican-American War were changed after he became the President of the United States? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant is obviously very passionate about how the Americans took advantage of the Mexican government in order to acquire more land. My question then becomes is there any way to know how his personal opinions about the situation influenced his actions during the war and how he commanded his troops? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In his memoirs, Grant talks about Santa Anna. I was wondering when they captured him and why? It says that they made a treaty while he was a POW, but "his life was in jeopardy". I am just confused about this whole situation because I dont remember talking about it in class..?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" it is apparent that he fells that American is far more superior in terms of an army and stragetgy. I was wondering if this was on of the first times that America is realizing that they are becoming a very strong nation, and that they ahve a superior army?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting when Grant compared and contrasted both General Scott, and General Taylor. It shows more the relationship of the three generals and more of a in depth view of each of them. Grant is very careful it seems not to be biased as to which of the men he favors (if any) and instead gives clear cut details about particular behavioral aspects. such as, how Taylor wore his clothes in battle that he was comfortable in, etc...-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Grant's memoirs, he talks about the army that fought the Mexican-American war. While General Taylor was more into comfort, clothes he could get down and dirty in, General Scott was more into the significance of the uniform and the exact meaning of being in the army. Also in the memoirs, Grant talks about the differences between the American army and the Mexican army; the Mexican army is untrained, randomly plucked off the street, whereas the American army is trained through everything from boot camp to West Point. The army in 1885 is very similar to today's military process as far as training goes. This is sort of irrelevant to the document, but I was wondering--when exactly did the United States establish procedure for joining the military that has lasted until today? Also, did General Taylor's experience in the war affect him or influence him later on when he became president in 1840?-- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I liked reading Grant's Memoirs because a lot of time in history we talk about the norms, so in this time period expansion was a norm. To read Grant criticizing the people of Texas for their disregard of the Mexican constitution which prohibits slavery and attributing it to their desire for land, I felt like we had new insight into the time period and how people feel, and it just reiterated to me that looking at history by what most people were doing isn't bad but we have to look at people who have different views or behaviors as well. -Melissa Brokes<br />
<br />
This passage was particularly interesting. I was most interested by the statement, "Mexico showing no willingness to come to the Nueces to drive the invaders from her soil, it became necessary for the 'invaders' to approach to within a convenient distance to be struck. Accordingly, preparations were begun for moving the army to the Rio Grande, to a point near Matamoras..." (p.232). This statement was very interesting because it shows the taunting behavior that the Americans demonstrated in order for the war to begin so that they did not have to technically initiate combat. This statement also demonstrates the amount of determination that the Americans had to obtain Texas. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
In "Ulysses S. Grant Recalls the Mexican War" I was wonder why he goes on to describe both Genreal Taylor and General Scott. He describes General Taylor as a man who never wore a uniform and dressed for comfort and General Scott as a man who was always dressed in uniform. Why did Ulysses S. Grant find it nessary to include this in his document?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
So, in Grants Memoir, he writes, "For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure [to annex Texas] and to this day regard the war which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger aganist a weaker nation." I take this quote to mean that Grant really did not like the idea of annexing Texas. So my question is that was he unhappy about the annexation because he was from the north, and did others from the north typicaly share this reaction or is it more of a personal issue? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
it's interesting how Grant "reagard the war, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" and he's fighting in it and how he alludes the republic to the european monarchies. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Grant compared the Mexican War to the events surrounding the Revolutionary War. He sees America as unjust for exerting their power over a weaker country because they want to "acquire more territory," which is what Britain had previously done to America. He also criticizes the Americans who colonized there for bringing slaves into the territory when the Mexican government opposed this institution. Was Grant an abolitionist? Or was he just anti-slavery as most people in the North were? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Lincoln, KS NE Act speech, 1854 ==<br />
Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854." I liked Lincoln's speech because it summarizes what is happening in America right before the Civil War. What kind of response did the speech receive and how did the North and the South react to it? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
In Abraham Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinios, October 16, 1854" he states "my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia, --- to their own native land.". Why would he want to do this? Why does he say it is their native land when the majority of slaves (if not all) at this time were in fact born in the US and have never even been to Africa? Why not free them and let them live and remain in the US? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Lincoln's "Speech in Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854" brings up some interesting information about Lincoln's stance of African Americans I didn't know about. When he says, "What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this;" it surprised me. If he is against slavery but against blacks being equals, where would that leave them? Surely Lincoln realized that such circumstances would cause internal conflict for the nation as it did during the civil rights movement. Or did he? What was he expecting to happen if slavery ended? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s Speech in Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854 he talks about sending the slaves to Liberia- “to their own native land”, he then remarks that this would not be feasible because it would take a lot of money to send all the African Americans over there and then to also send them supplies to prevent them from dieing. Were most anti-slavery people that afraid of the slaves being left in America that they were willing to ship them over to Africa- when in reality the slaves did not what to go back there and it would cost a lot of money? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions how slavery should be ended, but how a black man could not equal a white. In the same speech, at the end, Lincoln claims, “Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration that for some men to enslave OTHERS is a ‘sacred right of self-government.’” Obviously, Lincoln was anti-slavery, but in his claims of black men not equal to white men and then using the constitutional phrase “all men are created equal” he makes contradictory statements within his own speech. How can he make a point of slavery is wrong when white supremacy is still in his mind? Where were the slaves going to go in an anti-slavery man's mind? I think it shows how complicated an issue slavery still was even for those against it. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Towards the end of Lincoln’s speech he says, “Let us return to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in peace.” Did Lincoln simply want the reasoning for slavery to be one of necessity instead of sacred right so that slavery would still exist but not spread? Did he ever really plan on taking steps to end slavery in the states it was already established in? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I had a similar thought to Ally's while reading this piece. Lincoln argues against slavery and promotes abolition yet he still does not believe that African AMericans are socially or politically equal to whites. If blacks are not equal to whites, then what? What do anti-slavery and abolitionists think will happen if slavery was to be abolished? Where would blacks stand? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I may be interpreting the speech wrong, but it seems like Lincoln denounced the Kansas-Nebraska Act because he felt it only became established in the self-interest of Stephen Douglas. As said in class, Douglas did have "selfish" motives in developing the land, but I'm curious to know if any other politicians or people felt the same way Lincoln did about the development of the KS-NE Act. Towards the end of the speech, it becomes clear exactly where Lincoln stands on the political spectrum, something I found interesting. He paints himself as a Republican and in the speech, it felt like he was calling for a move to wash the dirty politics (the red in the republican robe-page263) out of Washington D.C. And by the dirty politics, I'm sure he was referring to the specific issue of slavery, but were there any other issues affecting politics? And if so, then was it the prevalence of slavery and the resulting sectional division dominating politics like today, the big issue seems to be the Iraq War? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Lincoln states that he would not even consider holding a slave, yet then he continues to say that as free men, he could not admit that they were equals. Was this contradictory opinion common among Americans at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Linclon's speech, he basicly states in the third full paragraph on page 261, the Southern people are the same as Northern people in that if the rolls were reversed, each side would do the same thing as the other side. I was wondering if this statement had any negative effect on the Northern view of Linclon or any positive effect on the Southern view of Linclon? I was just curious if he recieved any feedback from the public about how he compared the two sides. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
When Lincoln comments, "These principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon;..." Who is mammon? - Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Douglass, The Constitution of the US: Is it Pro-slavery or Anti-slavery?, 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Douglass' pamphlet, he says "They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free". I find it interesting that the court system re-adjusts their most well-known trait of, "innocent until proven guilty". Even in the most extreme cases where the accused obviously committed the crime, they are still considered to be "innocent until proven guilty". Why is this? I know that the South saw slaves not as people, but wouldn't it be expected that the courts (especially in the North where the slaves were "recaptured") comply with the law and try not to "convict" runaway slaves? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In response to alex, hwo could a black slave even attempt to prove himself free? He is not considered a citizen, has no rights, cannot hold any weight in court, and is a piece of property and nothign more. How exactly would a slave go about this process of proving that he was free? - Landon James<br />
<br />
Is Douglas the most dangerous type of abolitonist? One who has seen and lived the terrors of slavery and is educated enought o make solid arguments such as these. - Landon James<br />
<br />
In this week's readings, there were many references to the consititution and its wording and understanding. Specifically in this article when Douglass makes several direct references to it. My question, then, is if they south tried to change the constitution somehow, by passing a law or an amendment? -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
"They reverse the common law usage, and presume the negro a slave unless he can prove himself free. I on the other hand, presume him free unless he is proved to be otherwise." They treat the matter of slavery how we now view pleadings, innocent until proven guilty. This was the big debate at the time, on how to view blacks whether they were free or slaves by nature. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Douglas's pamplet he makes really good points and even admits that there is a slaveholding interpretation of the constitution, yet this does not mean that the constitution is in favor of slavery. My main question is what does he do with these pamplet's, does he do public readings of them, or send them somewhere. How does he promote this arguement?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
Douglass's speech appears to me to be very well worded thought out. He speaks intelligently and fluently despite having pretty much taught himself to read and write. Im surprised at the fact that with many people reading his speech, mostly whites, that anyone could have still believed the notion that blacks were an inferior race. What facts did they have to go on in this belief? Douglass's speech is even more convincing then Davis's and he speaks as if he knows the issues better, yet blacks are still accused of being stupid and inhuman. I dont understand how after meeting someone like Frederick Douglass, or even reading his speech, that whites could still find truth in that belief. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Douglass states, “The Constitution forbids the passing of a bill of attainer: that is, a law entailing upon the child the disabilities and hardships imposed upon the parent. Every slave law in America might be repealed on this very ground.” I have never heard this argument before. Was this a popular argument that had any real sway? How did slave owners counter it?<br />
<br />
When writing the Constitution, did Jefferson realize that he was leaving so many issues open ended? I mean, to an extent I'm sure he did, but if he knew that leaving issues such as slavery and equality so generalized was going to be such a problem, do you think he would have been more specific in what they wrote? ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
To Mary's question: Jefferson and the framers of the Constitution left out the issue of slavery primarily because they didn't want to deal with it. They didn't want to be responsible for creating a situation no one liked and pushed it off to the future generations to deal with, sort of like what Congress is doing with Social Security--they know they should get rid of it, but they don't want to. Douglass's pamphlet brought up some interesting points. He begins with the statement, "no man is guaranteed a right of property in man" (page 263). He then goes on to say that in his opinion, the slave system should be only in the hands of the South, where slavery is a basic way of life much like the North uses child labor or has degenerative factory conditions, and then the North ought to completely get rid of it. So it seems like to me, Douglass was in fact, by promoting the continuance of slavery in the South, potentially calling for the South to secede from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that Douglas points out the hypocritical attitude that most Americans have about slavery. He attacks the contradictions in their speech and actions by saying that "when their own [white] liberty is in question they will avail themselves of all the rulse of law which protect and defent their freedom; but when the black man's rights are in question they concede to everything for slavery and put liberty to the proof." This argument is based on the rhetoric of democracy that so many white Americans used, but refused to apply to slavery. Therefore, his arguments are very strong. I also found it interesting when we learned in class that he had white sponsors who bought his and his family's freedom after the court ruling. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Jefferson Davis and the Pro-Slavery view of the Constitution, Speech before US Senate, May 1860 ==<br />
<br />
In Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" he states three reasons why they claim protection of slavery. His first is that "it is our right"...how is having slaves a right? How does he get that from the Constitution? Another one of his reasons says "because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense". My question is defense from what? What do they need to be defended from and what does this have to do with slavery? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Did Jefferson Davis' "Speech before the U.S. Senate" have a direct affect on him becoming the president of the Confederacy. And also, I noticed that there are many "..." in the speech; why did they cut down the speech? Were there other sections of the speech that did not talk of the proslavery arguement? Basically I am asking, was this speech written specifically to argue that the Constitution is proslavery or were there many issues addressed? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
<br />
Jefferson Davis says "It was the essential requisite of the very idea of sovereignty in the State; of a compact voluntary entered into between sovereigns; and it is that equality of right under the Constitution on which we now insist..." How long did the state believe they would be able to choose between slaves and non slaves and still be "united". It is also strange how in the north there are (very few but are) free blacks with voting rights, while in the south they are slaves with no rights to anything. What made them think they could function with this double system of living. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
It seems to me in this speech that Jefferson Davis implies initial sovereignty to have been necessary as the first step to establish the states but now that notion is moved to unity within a single state. I may have interpreted it differently, but if that is what he was saying, then I don't see how Davis felt the United States would ever be able to function or be powerful. To take on a mentality of every state chooses to act in whatever way it chooses with no regard for other states in the country, would result in chaos. I don't understand how one could possibly think the country could stay united, especially with the definite separation of north and south. Since he seems to be saying we have made no war, but what we're doing is right we should protect it, is this kind of a foreshadowing of the war to come? --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In asnwer to Jenna's question about how does he think it is his right, in the argument he proposes the idea that all other property is protected so why not slave property, that is that he considers slaves to be his property. By claiming protection under property rights he was try to create a comparison to other things they owned. From his twisted point of view slaves were not human but a commodity that he bought and therefore should be protected. At least that was how I read his argument. I think though that he just told himself this so he could sleep at night. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I find it so interesting when reading these documents, to see how each person can twist a document to either direction. Were they aware of the contradictions against their argument within the document and simply ignore it so they could prove their own point? Or were they both convinced they were completely right?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
<br />
I found this article very persuasive. The sentences, "We claim protection [of slavery], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the General Government; and thirdly, because we have entered into a compact together, which deprives each State of the power of using all the means which it might employ for its own defense. This is the general theory of the right of protection..." (p. 266). This was an excellent argument that truly represented the South in the most positive light. By describing this in a way in which the government looks bad, at a national level, for enabling the Southerners a freedom, a right, the power and trust fell into the hands of the Southern Leaders. While they put up an excellent argument, in what ways were the Northerners persuasive about their argument? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how he refers to slave as property and that it is their right to own slaves. This document displays how torn the states were between pro-slavery and anti-slavery because anti-slavery states would not consider owning slaves a right. - Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
i find it interesting that Davis is upset that the Territorial Legislature is interfering "with the rights of person or property" when he is supporting slavery which is taking away the rights of african americans. ---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
== Granville Blanks, letter to the Editor, 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that Blanks wanted a separate country for "his people". It would make sense, as most slaves were very willing to be free. However, they want to be able to provide for themselves, as well. To take them to a whole new country, such as Liberia, they would have difficulty adjusting. Yet Blanks feels the only way that his people will be happy is if they had their own place to live. Most of the slaves in America at that time period were American-born. They also know how to work the land and how to (albeit meagerly) provide for themselves and their families although still in bondage. Why would they want to move to a different country, all the way across the ocean? How could they afford to move over there? Also lacking in his argument is people saying they want to move to Liberia. He notes what poor conditions they live in and how they would like them to improve, yet none of them really say that they would like to move to a different country. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I noticed while reading Granville Blanks' arguments for moving to Liberia, the differences between him and other African-Americans of his time. He says that his people should move to a new country to get away from the hostilities they face in America, whereas some like Frederick Douglass who were born and lived as slaves for so long want to stay. It's interesting the differences between the two men, Blanks was born free and wants to leave the white people, while Douglass went through the horrors of slavery and wants to stay in America and work to help others. Im surprised Blanks didn't feel that taking his fellow people and moving to another country would inevitably be worse for his people. Not only do they not know anything about this place he wants to go to, but all they are doing is pretty much saying to the whites that even THEY believe they are an inferior race and should just leave. This seems to be everything that men like Frederick Douglass are fighting against. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I’m not sure how realistic it is to think that relocation of colored people will solve their problems. First of all, the practicality of such a vast relocation of people is virtually nonexistent; how would you move an incredibly large number of people and all of their belongings to another place, all together? Second, wherever they go, they will be seen as outsiders and/or invaders in someone else’s land. This presents many of the same obstacles that they deal with in America. I doubt that relocation, although perhaps good in theory, was ever a plausible concept. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I have a feeling that most slaves, upon hearing this, would disagree with Blanks. By the time this was written, the population of slaves had already developed their own culture. They had new traditions and completely different skills than would be needed in Africa. I don't believe that most slaves would want to risk cutting the ties of tradition, personal ancestral history and possibly seperation from family members. --Laura Peters<br />
<br />
For Blanks to want to have a mass relocation of blacks to another place seems very brave to me. I can’t imagine it being something that was widely supported. The idea of relocation is just too broad. I wonder if there were ever any ideas of setting up a reserve of some types like what was done with the Indians for the blacks in America. Both ideas are insane, but it’s just a thought. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== John Brown at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand why the Brown's killed all those people. He states he was against slavery and all the people he killed were pro-slavery. I don't see how this would end slavery, if anything it would anger and frighten the slaveholders to protect and defend their claims to slavery and their lands more fervently. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
John Brown states that he never meant to incite riots or the idea of slave revolts through his actions at Pottawatomie and Harpers Ferry. I think he is lying for fear of his own life because his actions were definitely examples of inciting riots and slave revolts. He killed people and expected no response from the South, sounds like a crazy person. Did his actions at Harpers Ferry really ignite the fuel to start the American Civil War? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In John Brown’s Speech he says that he did not plan to kill anyone but his raid resulted in many deaths. He also admits to wanting to try to free the slaves. He then says that he has another objection to the court and goes on to talk about the Bible and being too young “to understand that God is any respecter of persons”, and then says that he led his revolt “in behalf of His despised poor”. With all of these ranting in court, it seems to me that he would also fall under the “crazy” category that the southern planters put so many of the slaves that had tired to run away and were captured. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Confession by James Townsley, I found it interesting Townsley mentions Brown’s intent to kill pro-slavery men and that he refused to go along with the attacks while Brown in his speech talks of his lack of intent to kill the same men. Both have the motive of claiming innocence to lie in their confessions, so which document is more reliable to what really happened? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Townsley's recollection, I find it very unlikely Townsley, Winer and Frederick Brown all merely sat back and watched these event occurring. It doesn’t make sense for the Browns to even let them do so, because it just provides people who didn’t participate to be witnesses to their murders. Also, Townsley tries far too carefully to be sure to say he has no idea where they were going, what the plan was, and each time there was a murder to say the three of them were 'left outside a short distance from the door'. To me this sounds like a man who doesn't want to share a similar death sentence. But since Brown says "I admire the truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses who have testified in this case" I assumed there were more accounts of this case so this and the others were based on the fundamental truths of the events, but just worded in a way that made them innocent. Was Townsley a witness for this case or did he come forth with his recollection at a later time? From the way he recalls it, he makes it seem like quite a bit of time had passed. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
Since Brown's goal to be a marter is that why he claims his only goal is to find and save slaves and did not intend to "murder, or treason, or the destruction of property, or to excite or incite slaves to rebellion, or to make insurrection"? Was this his way of guiding people who participated in future rebellion to go about it in a way that would not result in a fate similar to his or was he just trying to look good? Further, I thought it was a good point for Brown to bring up the Bible as a way to justify his mentality, since that is what the South was known for doing to justify their ways of slavery. --Christen Booher<br />
<br />
John Brown says that he never encouraged any man to cause trouble, but in the previous passage James Townsley states that Brown specifically asked him to join in. I just think that Brown is trying to make himself look much better. ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I notice that John Brown says that it was never his intent to physically harm anyone. However, I can’t imagine what he thought was going to happen in response to his actions. If you steal someone’s property, as slaves were, and you threaten those who agree with slavery, as he was doing, there can be little doubt that those you steal from and threaten will lash out at you. When someone lashes out, you have little choice but to react accordingly, and thus physical harm and violence are inherently a part of what Brown was doing. Also, seeing as Brown was a militant, I seriously question the validity of the claim he never meant any harm. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
I don't understand why, as Nick pointed out, John Brown denied his intentions to start riots etc... and essentially denounced why he'd done all this in the first place if he was so dead set on being a martyr. If he was so eager to be a martyr and obviously knew that it would only result in his death why would he say that he didn't really mean what he had obviously intended?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how John Brown used quotes from the Bible to justify his actions. He chose only quotes that support his position and completely disregarded all of the scripture that puts limitations on that. It shows that some trends in politics never die. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Just by reading the first part, the confession, it almost makes me want to think Brown is slightly unstable. If one is trying to get a mass of people to join their side of an argument, the last thing I think one would want to do was to kill others. It turns people off from your viewpoint and doesn’t help you at all. ---Virginia Stratton.</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments328--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T12:57:14Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here. What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I think geography also played an important role in the educational opportunities for many of the women. The women that grew up on a farm often found themselves living the traditional and expected life of wife and mother, while some of the women that grew up in the northeast had more experience with higher learning. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
`<br />
<br />
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren't feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
That's true, I wonder if that has do with the fact that everyone here is in college. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
It also might have been because that was what the norm was. Since so many didn't go to college they had extra time on their hands and were expected to start to raise a family as soon as they could. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I noticed that as well. It shows how ingrained in society and the belief of these women that these were the jobs that they were meant to do. My grandmother actually ended up combining the acceptable work once her children were in high school by not only doing secretarial work, but doing so for the school system. I found it interesting that so many women did fit into the traditional roles, it shows that the women who pushed the confines of society might not have been as numerous as some sources may portray.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
That is the strange thing about all of these papers. None of the people that we interviewed were activists, apparently. The majority of them did not believe that a women should work and raise children at the same time, and all of them, apparently, chose to follow typically feminine career tracks, if they worked at all, without any desire to do anything else. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I agree with Justin, it appears most of the women followed the typical path of t he 20th century woman: maybe go to school for a bit (either just high school or some college), get married, have kids, raise the kids, and after the kids have flown the coop, find a hobby. If the woman did decide to work it was typical women's work; clerical positions, teaching or nursing. ~Juliann Boyles<br />
<br />
Commenting on Jessica's point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading accounts of numerous women's lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree many of these women never became anything more than store clerks. I do wonder why they did not try to get a higher profession once society changed slightly. Could it have to do with the fact that many had just grown accustomed to their jobs and enjoyed them? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree that after reading these accounts it really is obvious how rare it was for women to become professionals. And when I say that, I'm excluding the teaching profession because that was an occupation at the same level. There are a number of women in these interviews who taught, or had the intent to teach, but it was rare for a woman to run off and become a nuclear physicist. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college. That relates a lot to what we've been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn't really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews. Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children. In one interview it talked about how married women didn't work or simply weren't hired as well as didn't come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we've talked a lot about in this class. Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn't then you went off to college.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family. I liked Jessica's remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president. I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn't everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn't seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that? Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ashley's interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Mrs. Gunnoe is actually my mother, I didn't want to state it out in the interview itself because I wanted it to be about her. I do feel my mom led a very interesting life. I know her mother was nagging all us grand-girls about getting married early and thinks I'm wasting my life with going to college right now. She doesn't treat me like a human unless my husband is with me because I'm worthless without him according to her. However, Mrs. Gunnoe dealt with all that growing up and met my dad and he is just so... not the average guy. He always helped with housework with mom, he encouraged her schooling, had to encourage her A LOT to even think of driving (that was a HUGE no no where she came from). Dad really changed mom's life and showed her that everything didn't have to be stay home and have babies. Which in essence is funny because he grew up not too far from where my mom lived in Cyclone. My mom from when I was little has pushed for both myself and my brother (but more pressure on me... *Sighs*) to get a good education and pick a field of work where I can support myself in case something happens to my husband. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don't think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
That's true, the difference between the times of the "Greatest Generation" and our own is fairly remarkable in this regard. Maybe if UMW had a ROTC, things would be different? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Yeah, although it is exactly what we read about in class, it is strange and slightly counter-intuitive to read about women whose sole focus was happily their husbands. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about how many women were divorced. We have learned in class that divorce was not common and sometimes even looked down upon yet several of the women interviewed were divorced. I also found it interesting that none of them gave a really solid answer when asked why they got a divorce. Most seemed to just ignore the question all together. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
So far, I have noticed the obvious, the women from wealthy families went to college. Women from poor families did not. <br />
<br />
Jean Fay Scott- divorced … poor…. Worked in a cigarette factory ... did not go to college. <br />
<br />
Heidi Brown- German Immigrant married an American. Poor childhood... no college. <br />
<br />
Molly woody went to college … wealthy family.. family had servants. <br />
<br />
Marye Ostwald went to college… wealthy family.. had servants. <br />
<br />
I also noticed that in two of the interviews, the mothers wanted more for their daughters than they had.<br />
Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I also noticed that many of the women interviewed either had their mothers want something better for them or even know they wanted something better for their own daughters. I think part of that might be that although they were happy with the way their life turned out- they realized that there were other things they could have done and didn't want their daughters to be limited based on society's dictations.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that all these women did what was necessary for their families to survive. I feel that in most cases it is the same today. If the family needs the second income the wife works. Women have always and will always be mothers and wives and will, in most cases, do what the family needs. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
Yeah, but I think today women tend to focus more on being self-actualized which makes being a mother a slightly different concept. Today, there is more than a single way for children to be raised. Then there was only one, the wife stays at home. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I see a lot of the same patterns of women growing up and doing some schooling, some higher, most not... They worked for a while and then had children and in the end stayed home with the children. Some returned to work after the children were out of the nest, some stayed home. There are always breaks in patterns though, like with my mom Mrs. Gunnoe, she stayed home until my brother was almost 2 and went back to work. She stayed home because of the car accident and I was born... she stayed home until I was about 5... but has worked ever since. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
What I want to say makes sense in my head, so let's see if I can spill it out for you all. What I noticed in these interviews ties in a lot with what some other people said about being happy housewives and mothers. For most of these women, it seemed to me that independence was not a top priority, and when I say independence, I mean the type that most of us strive for today by going to college, getting jobs (professions) and taking our time finding marriage. The idea of an MRS degree still floats around, but it's falling further and further into obscurity these days. These interviews really placed a "face" I guess you could say with the time period. I mean, yes, some of these women did go off and get jobs and help fight in the war, but most of them went into the commonly thought of "female positions." A lot of what we talked about in class seemed to kind of become more apparent for me while reading these interviews. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think I know what you are getting at Kelly. Like these women did want jobs, education and all but at the end of the day it was also a competition as to who got with the best husband and the best family, house, etc...Girls didn't only have to focus on school but in looking available and pretty for men.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
Overall I think what I liked most about reading these interviews was that these women really were the normal women of the century. While our readings for class are pretty well rounded, when writing my paper I found it extremely hard to find experiences in the readings that would relate to my interviewee because she was not that active and was a military wife, not in the military herself and unfortunately there were no readings about the experiences of military wives (though I think that would have been a very interesting read). So I definitely thought these papers and the projects were useful in giving a realistic face to the women of this century. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
It seems that most of the women didn’t have any problems with society in their life. Most women accepted their roles and had no regrets with the paths they chose. Today, women read these stories and feel that it was not fair with what women were expected to do. It definitely is based on the time period you were raised. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
With jobs, it seems that women liked their jobs, but felt ok to just leave it if it got in the way of taking care of the family. Some women left their jobs to have children then returned when the children were older. Also, some women went back to school to get an education after they had children. There are still women today that do this. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how many of the women did not seem to identify with the women's lib movement. It seems that a lot of women were satisfied with their choices of staying home with their children in a more "traditional" role. I also thought it was interesting that most of the housewives volunteered in some capacity. My mother volunteered at the schools and through church but she would never consider herself an activist, it seems like some others were the same way. It was really interesting to see that a lot of these women lived similar lives in a lot of ways.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After browsing all the essays one thing that stood out was how good of a sample this seems to be. There were examples of alot of things we talked about in class. There were examples of poor farming families, independent city women, activists, docile housewives, various roles played by women in WWII, differences in how families were affected by the depression, immigrants, and alot more. I did not expect the essays to be so diverse or so broad in their scope. -- Landon Davis <br />
<br />
It appears that alot of the women were poor growing up, most of them worked at some point or another, most of them quit work when they were married, most of them were married (young), and most of them were fairly well educated more went to college than I expected. -- Landon Davis <br />
<br />
I also noticed that most of them avoided strong language, or at least it was left out of the papers. Again I did not read every word of every essay, but no agressive or controversial lines jumped off the page. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After looking over the essays, I really noticed how all the women seemed to be so affected by their life experiences. I found it particularly interesting the comments some women made about looking at today's feminist movement - I think their perspective adds an important historical element that still largely incorporates the pressures and expectations of the past. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
It is clear from our classes sampling that every women had a fairly different life experience. It was amazing to me how different some of the women's stories were... some women happily stayed home while other eagerly pursued other options. I feel like our class's collection of stories is probably very representative of women's lives in the 20th Century. Not all women were revolutionary, progress, or even feminists. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
After browsing through the essays, I am wondering if there is a pattern here between the lives of rural verse urban women... I know we have learned about the rural vs. urban experience in class... how accurately is that reflected in these essays? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Good pickup Cat. I noted that the women that had it the most difficult growing up were women living in rural areas, especially those who lived throught the Depression. I liked the one story about the "huckster" who came around and brought the groceries and household goods right to the rural residences. I just learned where a word came from! All that said, my Grandparents were all teenagers during the Depression, and the experience was a drastic one for all of them, both the females and males... perhaps more scarring on many than World War II. At least during WWII, the possiblity of starving or being constantly unemployed seemed to have lessened. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I used a pseudonym for my mother. I thought that she was kind of conservative, until I read the other interviews. Even the more independent working women... did not appear to feel as if they were working for a movement, they just made the decisions that they made. I didn't read every line of each paper, but I don't recall Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan's names coming up often... and when they did... the women's responses were either negative, or guarded, rather than positive. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
My favorite paper was Justin's about Charlotte Corbett Parker. Being one of the foot soldiers of desegregation, and having all of the white kids ignoring her, must have been difficult. However, she went on to become an accomplished woman and doesn't appear bitter in spite of her difficult encounters with Jim Crow and desegregation. I think there is a lot we can learn as men and women from the civil rights generation of the Fifties and Sixties. It takes a strong person to just ignore the hatred being directed at them and channeling that abuse and treatment into a positive life experience... - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I got the vibe that a lot of these women did understand the importnace of being strong, independent, working women yet also were aware that they had to stay at home to keep their family together. Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I think it was Mary Beth's essay in which when she asked why her interviewee why she stopped working and the the answer was "...because i got married". Like hello? common sense! That's what women DO when they get married. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
The first thing that stuck out to me was the “restrained feminist” or proud-homemaker voice that many of the interviewees seemed to speak with. Sue Conrad noted she considered herself a feminist because she supported the right to vote, but she preferred life as a homemaker and the doctrine of separate spheres. She viewed some feminists as extreme. Virginia Kyser had a similar opinion, stating the feminist movement carried things too far. Connie Barna believed she was not against feminism but that she herself preferred to stay at home and create a pleasant atmosphere. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
<br />
Another trend that stuck out to me (and seemed to fit very well with what we learned in class) was the occupations of the interviewees. It seemed like upwards of 90% of the interviewees at some point worked as either a teacher or secretary. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
The most interesting essay to me was the interview of Sue Conrad. The discussion of segregation in Sue’s early life was completely the opposite of what I would have expected (she said that at a time when integration was a contentious issue, she attended a majority-white integrated school in West Virginia which a black student as the senior class president). The location and timing of this narrative is surprising, but in a good way. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
I read the same thing as Emely. It's interesting that getting married meant that you would quit your job. But what I also thought was interesting was that women who were nurses didn't mention quitting their jobs, at least from what I read. Maybe when you were a nurse, it was easier to combine home life with your job? -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
The proud homemaker tone did prevail in many of the essays. It seems something these women were so proud of and something I didn't understand until my own interview and reading other people's. Sometimes I think women who want to stay at home are called unambitious or lazy but really, these essays show that it was in fact a job. -Kendall Haring</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments328--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-04-17T09:27:15Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here. What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).'''<br />
<br />
<br />
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren't feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
That's true, I wonder if that has do with the fact that everyone here is in college. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I noticed that as well. It shows how ingrained in society and the belief of these women that these were the jobs that they were meant to do. My grandmother actually ended up combining the acceptable work once her children were in high school by not only doing secretarial work, but doing so for the school system. I found it interesting that so many women did fit into the traditional roles, it shows that the women who pushed the confines of society might not have been as numerous as some sources may portray.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
That is the strange thing about all of these papers. None of the people that we interviewed were activists, apparently. The majority of them did not believe that a women should work and raise children at the same time, and all of them, apparently, chose to follow typically feminine career tracks, if they worked at all, without any desire to do anything else. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Commenting on Jessica's point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading accounts of numerous women's lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I agree that after reading these accounts it really is obvious how rare it was for women to become professionals. And when I say that, I'm excluding the teaching profession because that was an occupation at the same level. There are a number of women in these interviews who taught, or had the intent to teach, but it was rare for a woman to run off and become a nuclear physicist. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college. That relates a lot to what we've been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn't really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews. Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children. In one interview it talked about how married women didn't work or simply weren't hired as well as didn't come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we've talked a lot about in this class. Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn't then you went off to college.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family. I liked Jessica's remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president. I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn't everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn't seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that? Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Ashley's interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Mrs. Gunnoe is actually my mother, I didn't want to state it out in the interview itself because I wanted it to be about her. I do feel my mom led a very interesting life. I know her mother was nagging all us grand-girls about getting married early and thinks I'm wasting my life with going to college right now. She doesn't treat me like a human unless my husband is with me because I'm worthless without him according to her. However, Mrs. Gunnoe dealt with all that growing up and met my dad and he is just so... not the average guy. He always helped with housework with mom, he encouraged her schooling, had to encourage her A LOT to even think of driving (that was a HUGE no no where she came from). Dad really changed mom's life and showed her that everything didn't have to be stay home and have babies. Which in essence is funny because he grew up not too far from where my mom lived in Cyclone. My mom from when I was little has pushed for both myself and my brother (but more pressure on me... *Sighs*) to get a good education and pick a field of work where I can support myself in case something happens to my husband. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don't think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
That's true, the difference between the times of the "Greatest Generation" and our own is fairly remarkable in this regard. Maybe if UMW had a ROTC, things would be different? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Yeah, although it is exactly what we read about in class, it is strange and slightly counter-intuitive to read about women whose sole focus was happily their husbands. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about how many women were divorced. We have learned in class that divorce was not common and sometimes even looked down upon yet several of the women interviewed were divorced. I also found it interesting that none of them gave a really solid answer when asked why they got a divorce. Most seemed to just ignore the question all together. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
So far, I have noticed the obvious, the women from wealthy families went to college. Women from poor families did not. <br />
<br />
Jean Fay Scott- divorced … poor…. Worked in a cigarette factory ... did not go to college. <br />
<br />
Heidi Brown- German Immigrant married an American. Poor childhood... no college. <br />
<br />
Molly woody went to college … wealthy family.. family had servants. <br />
<br />
Marye Ostwald went to college… wealthy family.. had servants. <br />
<br />
I also noticed that in two of the interviews, the mothers wanted more for their daughters than they had.<br />
Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
I also noticed that many of the women interviewed either had their mothers want something better for them or even know they wanted something better for their own daughters. I think part of that might be that although they were happy with the way their life turned out- they realized that there were other things they could have done and didn't want their daughters to be limited based on society's dictations.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I think that all these women did what was necessary for their families to survive. I feel that in most cases it is the same today. If the family needs the second income the wife works. Women have always and will always be mothers and wives and will, in most cases, do what the family needs. --Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
Yeah, but I think today women tend to focus more on being self-actualized which makes being a mother a slightly different concept. Today, there is more than a single way for children to be raised. Then there was only one, the wife stays at home. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I see a lot of the same patterns of women growing up and doing some schooling, some higher, most not... They worked for a while and then had children and in the end stayed home with the children. Some returned to work after the children were out of the nest, some stayed home. There are always breaks in patterns though, like with my mom Mrs. Gunnoe, she stayed home until my brother was almost 2 and went back to work. She stayed home because of the car accident and I was born... she stayed home until I was about 5... but has worked ever since. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
What I want to say makes sense in my head, so let's see if I can spill it out for you all. What I noticed in these interviews ties in a lot with what some other people said about being happy housewives and mothers. For most of these women, it seemed to me that independence was not a top priority, and when I say independence, I mean the type that most of us strive for today by going to college, getting jobs (professions) and taking our time finding marriage. The idea of an MRS degree still floats around, but it's falling further and further into obscurity these days. These interviews really placed a "face" I guess you could say with the time period. I mean, yes, some of these women did go off and get jobs and help fight in the war, but most of them went into the commonly thought of "female positions." A lot of what we talked about in class seemed to kind of become more apparent for me while reading these interviews. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think I know what you are getting at Kelly. Like these women did want jobs, education and all but at the end of the day it was also a competition as to who got with the best husband and the best family, house, etc...Girls didn't only have to focus on school but in looking available and pretty for men.- Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
Overall I think what I liked most about reading these interviews was that these women really were the normal women of the century. While our readings for class are pretty well rounded, when writing my paper I found it extremely hard to find experiences in the readings that would relate to my interviewee because she was not that active and was a military wife, not in the military herself and unfortunately there were no readings about the experiences of military wives (though I think that would have been a very interesting read). So I definitely thought these papers and the projects were useful in giving a realistic face to the women of this century. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
It seems that most of the women didn’t have any problems with society in their life. Most women accepted their roles and had no regrets with the paths they chose. Today, women read these stories and feel that it was not fair with what women were expected to do. It definitely is based on the time period you were raised. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
With jobs, it seems that women liked their jobs, but felt ok to just leave it if it got in the way of taking care of the family. Some women left their jobs to have children then returned when the children were older. Also, some women went back to school to get an education after they had children. There are still women today that do this. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how many of the women did not seem to identify with the women's lib movement. It seems that a lot of women were satisfied with their choices of staying home with their children in a more "traditional" role. I also thought it was interesting that most of the housewives volunteered in some capacity. My mother volunteered at the schools and through church but she would never consider herself an activist, it seems like some others were the same way. It was really interesting to see that a lot of these women lived similar lives in a lot of ways.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
After browsing all the essays one thing that stood out was how good of a sample this seems to be. There were examples of alot of things we talked about in class. There were examples of poor farming families, independent city women, activists, docile housewives, various roles played by women in WWII, differences in how families were affected by the depression, immigrants, and alot more. I did not expect the essays to be so diverse or so broad in their scope. -- Landon Davis <br />
<br />
It appears that alot of the women were poor growing up, most of them worked at some point or another, most of them quit work when they were married, most of them were married (young), and most of them were fairly well educated more went to college than I expected. -- Landon Davis <br />
<br />
I also noticed that most of them avoided strong language, or at least it was left out of the papers. Again I did not read every word of every essay, but no agressive or controversial lines jumped off the page. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
After looking over the essays, I really noticed how all the women seemed to be so affected by their life experiences. I found it particularly interesting the comments some women made about looking at today's feminist movement - I think their perspective adds an important historical element that still largely incorporates the pressures and expectations of the past. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
It is clear from our classes sampling that every women had a fairly different life experience. It was amazing to me how different some of the women's stories were... some women happily stayed home while other eagerly pursued other options. I feel like our class's collection of stories is probably very representative of women's lives in the 20th Century. Not all women were revolutionary, progress, or even feminists. - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
After browsing through the essays, I am wondering if there is a pattern here between the lives of rural verse urban women... I know we have learned about the rural vs. urban experience in class... how accurately is that reflected in these essays? - Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Good pickup Cat. I noted that the women that had it the most difficult growing up were women living in rural areas, especially those who lived throught the Depression. I liked the one story about the "huckster" who came around and brought the groceries and household goods right to the rural residences. I just learned where a word came from! All that said, my Grandparents were all teenagers during the Depression, and the experience was a drastic one for all of them, both the females and males... perhaps more scarring on many than World War II. At least during WWII, the possiblity of starving or being constantly unemployed seemed to have lessened. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I used a pseudonym for my mother. I thought that she was kind of conservative, until I read the other interviews. Even the more independent working women... did not appear to feel as if they were working for a movement, they just made the decisions that they made. I didn't read every line of each paper, but I don't recall Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan's names coming up often... and when they did... the women's responses were either negative, or guarded, rather than positive. - Phil N.<br />
<br />
My favorite paper was Justin's about Charlotte Corbett Parker. Being one of the foot soldiers of desegregation, and having all of the white kids ignoring her, must have been difficult. However, she went on to become an accomplished woman and doesn't appear bitter in spite of her difficult encounters with Jim Crow and desegregation. I think there is a lot we can learn as men and women from the civil rights generation of the Fifties and Sixties. It takes a strong person to just ignore the hatred being directed at them and channeling that abuse and treatment into a positive life experience... - Phil N.<br />
<br />
I got the vibe that a lot of these women did understand the importnace of being strong, independent, working women yet also were aware that they had to stay at home to keep their family together. Emely Amaya.<br />
<br />
I think it was Mary Beth's essay in which when she asked why her interviewee why she stopped working and the the answer was "...because i got married". Like hello? common sense! That's what women DO when they get married. - Emely Amaya<br />
<br />
The first thing that stuck out to me was the “restrained feminist” or proud-homemaker voice that many of the interviewees seemed to speak with. Sue Conrad noted she considered herself a feminist because she supported the right to vote, but she preferred life as a homemaker and the doctrine of separate spheres. She viewed some feminists as extreme. Virginia Kyser had a similar opinion, stating the feminist movement carried things too far. Connie Barna believed she was not against feminism but that she herself preferred to stay at home and create a pleasant atmosphere. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
<br />
Another trend that stuck out to me (and seemed to fit very well with what we learned in class) was the occupations of the interviewees. It seemed like upwards of 90% of the interviewees at some point worked as either a teacher or secretary. -- Matt Struth<br />
<br />
The most interesting essay to me was the interview of Sue Conrad. The discussion of segregation in Sue’s early life was completely the opposite of what I would have expected (she said that at a time when integration was a contentious issue, she attended a majority-white integrated school in West Virginia which a black student as the senior class president). The location and timing of this narrative is surprising, but in a good way. -- Matt Struth</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T11:44:08Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the preface by William Lloyd Garrison, Garrison states that, "The experience of Frederick Douglass, as a slave, was not a peculiar one; his lot was not especially a hard one; his case may be regarded as a very fair specimen of the treatment of slaves in Maryland..." However, in the narrative, Douglass still makes it very clear that although the life he led was not that bad he clearly had suffered, particularly with the telling of watching his aunt get whipped. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the narrative, Douglass mentions, "If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural..." Is Ham in reference to Abraham? Why would he use Ham instead of Abraham? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass' point of view. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said "Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me." It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
If Frederick Douglass knows, as a slave, he is not considered a person, he is considered property, then why does he use the Constitution to fight for his rights? He talks about the differences between people and objects and then argues that he has the right to land and property because of this.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
<br />
I am very confused when reading Douglass' accounts of slaves tellings truths and lies about their masters. I do not understand how, if their master treats them so cruelly, they stand up and "quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other". They've seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer's had whipped slaves raw, and persons of the house could whip a slave at any time, for virtually any reason. As there was a lot of traveling between plantations done by slaves, wouldn't they hear of "good" masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect? How can they "mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately", yet believe that their master is the best one? Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn't fight for their masters. Granted, they wouldn't talk terribly about them, yet wouldn't they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
When Douglas reaches the point that he can remember dates, he goes to live with Thomas Auld. Auld and his family pretty much starve their slaves and they resort to begging and stealing from the neighbors. Treatment and care of slaves was a big thing considering the fact that even the slaves knew they were being mistreated to other slaveholder standards. I wonder why they never set rules for slavery if they were so passionate about treatment of slaves even if they wouldn't flat out abolish it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Was it dangerous for Frederick Douglass to have published this memoir? Would his ex-masters have sent people after him, or was he completely safe where he was? It seems that his memoir would create a lot of enemies. --Gracie<br />
<br />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation." The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals? Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King<br />
<br />
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend? If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality? Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals? I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar's account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It's funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After reading this I began to wonder if to some people, church was not simply entertainment. Certainly it was quite dramatic but it was also a way for blacks and females to freely enter the public sphere. How many were really faithful? And how did this contribute to the cultural background of America, it was much like the traveling circuses and shows in my opinion.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, "At first they were taken with an inward throbbing of heart; then with weeping and trembling: from that to crying out, in apparent agony of soul; falling down and swooning away till every appearance of animal life was suspended, and the person appeared to be in a trance". In class, it was mentioned that usually the sinners were sent to stand in front of the podium. Could they have been faking these reactions, just to make people believe that they had converted? It's kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances. I don't doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations. You don't see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
How come, during the time of the greatest relgious revival in America, the government committed it's biggest crimes against humanity. This was the time period that the Indians were being removed from their original lands, and slavery was very prevalent. I'm sure some people had to be sincere in their conversions... --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Even though blacks were allowed to attend were they treated any better then they were in everyday life? If they were treated better would black people go to these camps just to be treated a little better or would they go becuase they truly believe in there purpose? Was this one of the first times where blacks were begining to be treated like whites?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Jackson's farewell address. It sounded real proud about what has happened so far and where this country would be going in the future. In his speech he tells the people that they come first and they must not be taken advantage of by the government. He beleives that the people are the building blocks of this country.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I really find it interesting that Grimke sympathizes with the colored woman so much. Seeing as how Grimke grew up in a household with many slaves, I wonder what was the turning point in her life that made her sympathizes with the slaves so much. --Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
I agree with Ally. The fact that Lovejoy got warnings and considering the fact that he had most likely seen what these mobs had done to other people he still acted as if nothing was wrong. The cause he was fighting for was noble, but he just seems a little dumb to me. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that, even though Lovejoy was in a free state, the two men that come to attack him were from slave states. Little was from Virginia and St. Charles was from Mississippi. I was wondering if it was common for individuals from slave states to travel into free states and commit acts of violence when they knew that abolitionists would be speaking? -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_12_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-04-11T11:17:32Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Frederick Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass ==<br />
<br />
I wondered a lot while reading this narrative why Frederick didn't run away sooner? He mentioned that when he was content with his life as a slave, he was more eager to run away then when he was being abused and mistreated, why is this so? I would have assumed that he would have run away when he was in the care of Mr. Covey and was mistreated, but he endured it, almost never mentioning the want to run away. It wasn't until he was with Mr Freeland and then with Mr. Hugh, both of whom treated him much more kindly, that he started making plans to run away. It seems that this would just reinforce that general idea that slaves needed to be mistreated so they wouldn't act out and would only cause those few kind masters to revert to being abusive. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
Frederick mentioned that when his grandmother was old and unable to do work, his master took her to the woods, built her a hut and let her live out the rest of her life alone. Frederick made this seem like the worst punishment in the world, but i wonder why it would be so? I assumed that living free of doing any work and being abused would be heaven for any slave, let alone an old lady. Its not like they just pushed her out into the woods they even built her something to live in (however poor im sure it was). Wouldn't living under the harsh hand of a cruel master been a worse punishment for the old lady?- Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the last chapter of Frederick Douglass’s Narrative he goes into a long explanation about how he cannot tell the specifics of his escape because it would possibly close an outlet for slaves trying to runaway. Would there have been that many people actually reading his writings that he could be preventing runaway slaves from succeeding if he revealed the way that he was able to runway successfully? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Douglass mentions multiple cases where slaves are killed and the master or overseer isn’t seen as excessive by society and nothing is done about these situations. I know it wasn’t considered a crime, but in class it was made seem that a slave owner who killed a slave would be, in a sense, outcast to society. Wouldn’t their value as workers come into their importance and make these incidents more of a crime? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a couple of things to talk about. First, in the very begining, Douglass talks about how "God cursed Ham (p.3)." What is he talking about when he says this? Second, when he told the story of Sophia Auld,he stated that at first she was like an angel but slavery transformed her into an evil person. I noticed how this goes with the motif that slavery is also bad not only for the slave but for the master.-Kristina Scrimshaw <br />
<br />
It seems pretty amazing that Douglass was able to get away with winning a fight against Mr. Covey without punishment. Mr. Covey was known as a slave breaker, but he backed down from Douglass after the incident. Douglass must have been very unusual to show this type of fearlessness. Why did Covey back down so easily after a single incident? Did he fear blacks and Douglass was a manifestation of Covey’s worst fear? -Emily King<br />
<br />
In Frederick Douglass's Narrative, there were quite a few comments that were astounding. However, there was one that stood out, "If a horse did not move fast enough, or hold his head high enough, it was owing to some fault of his keepers. It was painful to stand near the stable-door, and hear the various complaints against the keepers when a horse was taken out for use." (pg.11) This quote and passage was quite appalling because the slave had no chance to possibly explain the odd behaviors of the horse. As an educated master, I feel that he should have had knowledge enough to realize that there were other factors besides slaves that could cause problems with the horses. With that said, did the masters just feel that the slaves deserved to be scolded and/or punished regularly, and therefore, they would punish them for minor issues that they themselves knew were actually not worthy of punishment? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
This is kind of a random question, but Frederick Douglass mentions a few times about slaves singing and dancing. I was wondering if this was the start of the black "culture"? Slavery had such a big impact of the lives of blacks, and I feel like singing helped them to feel better. Douglass even said that he would cry during songs. I was just wondering if this was the start of that culture, or if it had no signicficant affect.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it was very interesting how Mr. Auld said "Learning with spoil the best nigger in the world". This statement seems to be obviously false, because learning has always enhanced, not hindered someones intelligence, but I think what Mr. Auld is getting at is that the idea of black men learning will hurt the masters, because then they are educated in many ways, and have unlimited amounts of possiblilities.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in the preface by William Lloyd Garrison, Garrison states that, "The experience of Frederick Douglass, as a slave, was not a peculiar one; his lot was not especially a hard one; his case may be regarded as a very fair specimen of the treatment of slaves in Maryland..." However, in the narrative, Douglass still makes it very clear that although the life he led was not that bad he clearly had suffered, particularly with the telling of watching his aunt get whipped. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In the beginning of the narrative, Douglass mentions, "If the lineal descendants of Ham are alone to be scripturally enslaved, it is certain that slavery at the south must soon become unscriptural..." Is Ham in reference to Abraham? Why would he use Ham instead of Abraham? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting how Douglass was able to show the affect of slavery on the slaveholders. We often learn about the treatment of slaves and how it affects them, but I found it ironic that at times Douglass seemed to even pity his owners, Auld and Covey. He shows how both of these men are trying so hard to be something they are not, Auld is trying to portray himself as a powerful slaveowner while Covey was trying to use Christianity to justify the cruel way he treats slaves. The most obvious portrayal of the effect slavery has on a slaveowner was in Sophia Auld. We see Sophia transform from a caring and generous woman into a harsh, unkind woman. It was interesting to see both sides of slavery from Douglass' point of view. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
I thought reading this showed different aspects of slavery that sometimes do not occur to us. For example Douglass talks of how his one mistress teaches him to read, but as time progresses she becomes hardened and cruel. Douglass said "Slavery proved as injurious to her as it did to me." It makes me wonder if the men treated the slaves like this how were they treating their wives? And in this case something must have happened to make her change so drastically, so I wonder if there were more women like her who do not appear to like what is going on but are to certain extent unable to do anything because of their position in society? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Also reading this I began to think of the impact of slavery on children in a different level. I had always thought how horrible it was that they were taken from their parents and raised in slavery, but some things I had not considered as much as I think I should have. In the beginning Douglass tells of how he saw his aunt beaten by the slaveowner. I can't imagine the psychological damage that would do to a child. To grow up with those images and the treatment they received while enslaved I am suprised that there were not more slave rebellions and uprisings. I would think with this long term physical and psychological damamge more of the slaves would lash out at their whites owners. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
If Frederick Douglass knows, as a slave, he is not considered a person, he is considered property, then why does he use the Constitution to fight for his rights? He talks about the differences between people and objects and then argues that he has the right to land and property because of this.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
<br />
I am very confused when reading Douglass' accounts of slaves tellings truths and lies about their masters. I do not understand how, if their master treats them so cruelly, they stand up and "quarrel among themselves about the relative goodness of their masters, each contending for the superior goodness of his own over that of the other". They've seen the cruelties of their masters, as Douglass had mentioned that previous overseer's had whipped slaves raw, and persons of the house could whip a slave at any time, for virtually any reason. As there was a lot of traveling between plantations done by slaves, wouldn't they hear of "good" masters who treated their slaves with a shred more of respect? How can they "mutually execrate their masters when viewed separately", yet believe that their master is the best one? Surely the slaves of the most cruel master in a certain town/regional area wouldn't fight for their masters. Granted, they wouldn't talk terribly about them, yet wouldn't they have moral issues defending them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
When Douglas reaches the point that he can remember dates, he goes to live with Thomas Auld. Auld and his family pretty much starve their slaves and they resort to begging and stealing from the neighbors. Treatment and care of slaves was a big thing considering the fact that even the slaves knew they were being mistreated to other slaveholder standards. I wonder why they never set rules for slavery if they were so passionate about treatment of slaves even if they wouldn't flat out abolish it. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Was it dangerous for Frederick Douglass to have published this memoir? Would his ex-masters have sent people after him, or was he completely safe where he was? It seems that his memoir would create a lot of enemies. --Gracie<br />
<br />
== Richard McNemar, Kentucky Revival, 1801 ==<br />
<br />
In one part of the article it says "On this occasion, no sex nor color, class nor description, were exempted from the pervading influence of the spirit; even from the age of eight months to sixty years, there were evident subjects of this marvellous operation." The part that really caught my eye was the mention of people as young as eight months; were children brought to these revivals? Were they subjected to participate in them before they even knew what religion was? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Frontier Revival, there were men, women, whites, and blacks that all congregated together during these meetings. Is there any evidence that the protestant churches believed in equality of all human beings and were trying to make steps towards this belief? -Emily King<br />
<br />
At the church revival camps in this passage, were the blacks that were allowed to attend free or were slaves too allowed to attend? If in fact slaves were allowed to attend, how did their master feel about this, since it was bringing them to some point of equality? Are there any recorded problems and/or riots that occurred due to the attendance of blacks at these revivals? I just find it hard to believe that people living in the deep South were supporting of these revivals being so closely integrated, since it was for a long period of time compared to the length of church services, which were only shared weekly. Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I was wondering if there were instances where these congregations were used as a tool for profit. If thousands of people were camping in the woods for several days at a time, where were they getting food? Did they have to pay to camp? There must have been someone taking advantage of these camps as a business oportunity. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
On the same note, it seems that these camp meetings were selling themselves in a commercial manner by offering a form of entertainment. In McNemar's account he mentions many men and women being curious about the very odd conversion experiences and outburst at the meetings from what they had heard from others. It's funny that this idea of religion as an entertainment experience has stuck with us in some ways that are still present today. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
After reading this article and what we discussed in class about the Second Great Awakening, I wonder how this transformation of religious understanding effected the social standing of ministers and religious elite? In the past, religious elite and chosen were considered above the rest, but after the Second Great Awakening, where happened to their place in society?- Dani Jones<br />
<br />
After reading this I began to wonder if to some people, church was not simply entertainment. Certainly it was quite dramatic but it was also a way for blacks and females to freely enter the public sphere. How many were really faithful? And how did this contribute to the cultural background of America, it was much like the traveling circuses and shows in my opinion.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I know that some of this was mentioned in class, and some from the book, but it says that, "At first they were taken with an inward throbbing of heart; then with weeping and trembling: from that to crying out, in apparent agony of soul; falling down and swooning away till every appearance of animal life was suspended, and the person appeared to be in a trance". In class, it was mentioned that usually the sinners were sent to stand in front of the podium. Could they have been faking these reactions, just to make people believe that they had converted? It's kind of like the Salem Witch Trials when the girls pretended to go into the (now obviously) fake trances. I don't doubt their new beliefs, however it seems a bit odd that they are all getting these revelations. You don't see too much of that happening very often anymore, and there are a lot of people with very strong religious faiths. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
How come, during the time of the greatest relgious revival in America, the government committed it's biggest crimes against humanity. This was the time period that the Indians were being removed from their original lands, and slavery was very prevalent. I'm sure some people had to be sincere in their conversions... --Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Even though blacks were allowed to attend were they treated any better then they were in everyday life? If they were treated better would black people go to these camps just to be treated a little better or would they go becuase they truly believe in there purpose? Was this one of the first times where blacks were begining to be treated like whites?- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In The Kentucky Revival, the religion that was mentioned is very interesting. The article states that it is a wonder how people with different education and manners and never seen each other can react to the sermon in perfect harmony. This can give a possiility that these people could be faking to fit in.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I noticed that in the Kentucky Revival, it is mentioned more than once how everyone was welcome; black, white, male, and female. But, in class, there was a map showing how they were still seperated. Was there any instances where there was not the typical segrigation? Was this more pronounced in the north, south, or did alll the regions have similar seperation?-Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
I seem to recall that people with disorders, i.e. blind, lame, tuberculosis, etc., often attended these revivals in the hopes of being cured. I also seem to remember from somewhere that sometimes they would plant people with false disorders to be “cured” so as to encourage others? Is any of this true? Also, I was wondering about the plans for the tents that we saw in class the other day. They were separated into male and female, but did this apply to married couples as well? ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
== Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837 ==<br />
<br />
If Jackson was around today to see how our banks worked, would he still hold his same opinion on a national currency? - Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
A lot of his speech revolves around justice and how important this is. Is there a reason that justice was so important to him or was he just looking for a topic to talk about? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In Andrew Jackson’s Farewell Address, I found it interesting he seems to talk about all the negatives and of his disapproval of the ‘high tariff’ that he had previously forced South Carolina to follow in the Nullification Crisis. This contradiction, I think, shows his desire to be the common man’s president because the tariff was helping the wealthy and not his target supporter. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in a short period of time from Washington's presidency/farewell address to Jackson's that they are total opposites. Washington warned of an outer threat from some other nation. Jackson on the other hand clearly states, "...from within, among yourselves." Why such the sudden change in fear? Jackson states the big businessmen and pseudo-aristocratic families, but how did they go unchecked sicne Washington's era was keen to keep a steady eye on them, so to speak? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Jackson's farewell address. It sounded real proud about what has happened so far and where this country would be going in the future. In his speech he tells the people that they come first and they must not be taken advantage of by the government. He beleives that the people are the building blocks of this country.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
President Andrew Jackson's speech demonstrated fears that many Americans had of an over powerful government. Jackson and others had such strong fear of the government gaining too much power but I was wondering how legitimate these fears were? Could a strong central government have actually formed? Was it even truly possible? -lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In the Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, Sarah Grimké says “All I complain of is, that our education consists so exclusively in culinary and other manual operations”, she wanted equal education for both men and woman and wanted to have a more classical education. Were their many women at this time that actually felt this way or was she one of the few who was unhappy with her education and place in society? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I actually also wondered whether there were more women clamoring for better education or whether they did not think it necessary for themselves. It seems to me that perhaps it went either (or both) ways. Maybe some women actually believed in the position in society they held; that they were meant only to cook and dance and keep house? In this way, it is not unlike the idea we were recently discussing about how Southern slave owners truly believed that their slaves were happy; perhaps these women were truly satisfied with their lives. However, I can’t help but think (and hope, I suppose, as a woman myself) that there were many women who wanted to be better educated and just did not have the courage to stand up for themselves. At the same time, I understand that it was the time when many were buying into the ideal of women as housekeepers, and only housekeepers, and therefore believe that it is possible many women were satisfied with their place. In this respect I suppose it is not unlike the 1950s. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Were Sarah Grimké's letters actually available to women? Were women allowed to and able to read these? What good would they really do if her main audience didn't even have access to them? I'm sure men didn't really want to change anything about the role of women so without the support of women her thoughts and feeling really didn't matter. -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Throughtout the semester we have read a lot about the history of early America and every so often a document pertaining to female equality/rights presents itself. I was curious how did society react to women, such as Grimké? We know Ann Hutchinson was exiled, Abigail Adams was revered, both by men and women, but what did society think? We know how they treated women, as Grimké states in her letters, but still it doesn't explain why men allowed women to continue writing and speaking against their societal expectations. How did they respond to such letters, notes, and documents? We don't see angry mobs at her doorstep like Elijah Lovejoy or was it more subtle? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question about women unhappy with their education--a few weeks back, we read valedictorian speeches. Dr. McClurken said in class that a lot of women, not just a few, were unhappy with their education. I certainly wouldn't be happy with what I recieved. You'd think that society would be willing to educate women more, even if under the notion of the republican mother/wife. Given that, I know the Grimke sisters were at the top of the reform movement and I wonder how, not only the men, but other women as well reacted to their actions. I would assume that only a few would be so bold as to join the Grimke sisters in their plight, which meant that for the women, they would have to defy their husbands' rule in the home and to society, they were doing the unthinkable by broaching the domestic sphere. However, like Dr. McClurken said in class, it is possible that some women were able to join or contribute to their efforts by arguing their role as women, wives, and mothers was to take care of American society as a whole rather than their individual families. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that the men of this age wanted to keep women in there "sphere" of domestic life and simple living. However, at the same time, they put all their trust in the woment to raise the children to be all-around Americans. I know that they began educating the women in order to better teach their children. But it still does not seem reasonable to me.-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
Grimke says that she doesn’t disagree with how women should know the basics of taking care of a household and raising a family. All she wants is for husbands to tell their wives to take some time off and educate themselves even if it means that dinner wouldn’t be as grand. But being the feminist she is I don’t understand why she doesn’t suggest for the husband to cook dinner if she didn’t have time. That would make more sense. I would have to say that I disagree with Grimke's statement about the "moral purity of the white woman is deeply contaminated." From my understanding a white woman's treatment of Africans were no better that of a white man's. or i could have just misunderstood her point.---Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I would find it interesting to see exactly what they did study back then. Cooking and other "domestic" lessons obviously but what was perceived as the norm for female lessons?-- Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
It is interesting how women are expected to dress act and carry themselves. They are supposed to be educated enough to read novels but really not to be heard in the public arena. The novels women were reading at the time, where they written by men and specifically for women? Were these novels worded in ways that women were to "behave" and not make a big scene in the public eye? Lauren Hicks.<br />
<br />
I guess what I want to know here is what exactly was Grimke calling for women to do about the issue of slavery? She suggests that they "cannot be guiltless". But based on her descriptions of the role of women in society, lacking power and influence, is she actually just suggesting women must feel more guilty about slavery or is there a call for action hidden more subtly between the lines? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837 ==<br />
<br />
I am grateful that, under the circumstances, Mr. Lovejoy "received no molestation" as he exited church that evening. I guess he wasn't a catholic. Cha ching. -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
Were the mobs that were after Lovejoy made up of prominent slave-holders? Why were they so up-in-arms about one abolitionist that they would take violent action? Why were they so threatened?-Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
One thing that made me confused was the circumstances described in the italicized paragraph before the writing. It says that Lovejoy was preaching in Illinois--a free state--about abolitionism. So the situation detailed in the letter is from when he was in Illinois? So the angry mob came to him in Illinois or was he preaching in Mississippi? I can see that why the angry mob came--it's kind of like that one group who protests at funerals of soldiers from Iraq or whatever that you hear about on the news. Where there's someone speaking against their beliefs, they're inclined to go and react accordingly, similar to how the mob reacted against Lovejoy. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
What bothers me about Elijah Lovejoy's actions is that he doesn't take any of the warnings seriously. Yes I agree it is right to stand up for what you believe, but there's an extent to which it applies. He could have avoided many of the problems he encountered by just being smart and taking some advice. Maybe the best question is ask is, did he realize the severity of the circumstances? And if so, did he just not care? -Ally Campo</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T23:39:27Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In reading Bennet Barrow's journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today. But reading his "confessions" made me wonder just what drives people to do so. Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn't treated him the way they did when he was a child? Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I find it interesting how poor white farmers who are surpressed by rich white plantation owners maintain to be pro-slavery. It is obvious that the standards of work are completely different because of slaves and this takes away from the ability of poor white men to get second jobs or jobs outside the farm. But despite all of this, they continue to be pro-slavery. I believe they are mostly pro-slavery because despite their current state, they aspire to be one of those wealthy slaveowners and want to be able own many slaves of their own. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
In "The Cotton Kingdom" I was surprised when the poor farmer asks, "How do you get your work done?" and Olmsted replies, "There are many Irish and German people constantly coming there who are glad to get work to do." and the farmer replies with, "Oh, and you have them for slaves?" Were most poor, white, deep southerners unaware of the conditions in the north? And if most were not, did most assume that slavery was as prevalent in the north as it was in the south? -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T23:29:49Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In reading Bennet Barrow's journal I wondered what the reprecussions were for the slaves who did not follow the rules and whether disobeying one rule had greater consequences than the next. Since it would have a negative impact on his plantation if he hanged the slaves who disobeyed him, I wonder if he (or other slaveowners) set certain punishments for different actions, such as a certain number of lynches or something else. -- Christen Booher<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today. But reading his "confessions" made me wonder just what drives people to do so. Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn't treated him the way they did when he was a child? Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I, like many others, was completely puzzled when I read this account. I realize we have to look at things differently because this was written when different social standards were in place. However, to say that slaves were in an "Eden" and that because the absence of pain is pleasure that the slaves must be the happiest in the world is just completely mind boggling. I did a bit of research and found that It was reported, in 1841, that seventy-eight of his slaves died in a ten-year period. Was he so far removed, so invested in the production of cotton and the "old south" view of slaves and so blind that he actually thought these ludicrous things despite all the evidence against it? Or was it simply for his convenience that he looked at slaves this way?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
There were two things I found interesting from James Henry Hammond's "Letter to an English Abolitionist." First, I was surprised that he used the example of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are born equal" statement to represent the opposite of what slave holders believed. Did he ever consider that Jefferson meant "all WHITE men"? Second, I found it interesting that he compared the child labor conditions in Great Britain to the conditions of slavery. He makes slave owners seem just and compassionate toward children because he says that "we never put them [slaves] to any work, under ten, more generally twelve years of age, and then the very lightest." I wonder what the response would be from someone who lived in Britain and read this? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_11_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T23:21:27Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Bennett Barrow’s Plantation Journal, May, 1838 ==<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he states, "The negro who is accustomed to remain constantly at Home, is just as satisfied with society on the plantation as that which he would find elsewhere, and the verry restrictions laid upon him being equally imposed on others, he does not feel them, for society is kept at Home for them..." If it was the case that slaves were content at the plantation, then why would the owners fear rebellion and why would they run away? This doesn't seem to make sense to me. It sounds more like he is trying to convince himself that they are content to perhaps ease a guilty conscience. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal." Did other slave-owners have similar rules as Bennet Barrow? I wasn't sure by reading his journal if his rules were successful or not, were they? The way he wrote in his journal conveyed an image of a man of pride and accomplishment, but did he possibly write in bias of himself? Is there any evidence of slave-owners sincerely concerned for their slaves and kind to them? -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
I found Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" to be contradictory. The article seems contradictory in the sense that the rules that are set and what Barrow is explaining don't really match up. He keeps talking about how important it is for the slaves to be happy and how he is providing everything essential for their happiness but then he sets rules that limit them so much that there is no way that the slaves could ever attain any degree of happiness. Does he not see this? Barrow comes across as a man who feels very superior to others; like he is the generous and caring man who deserves nothing but the best in return. Did all slave owners feel this way? Like they deserved praise from their slaves for providing them with necessities? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Bennet Barrow states, "The verry securtiy of the plantation requires that a general and uniform control over the people of it should be exercised," (244). He then explains that the slaves are supposed to protect the plantation from intruders. I find it interesting that he is master over these slaves, and believes the security of his plantation is dependent on the slaves protection of it, yet he is still afraid of them. It seems that Barrow and slaveowners like him overlooked the logic of the situation and got lost in the justifications of slavery. ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In Bennet Barrow's "Highland Plantation Journal" he seems to describe when a slave can and cannot leave the plantation much like how a parent might set a curfew or rules for their child. This is particularly clear when he says "I never give a negro a Pass to go from home without he first states particularly where he wishes to go, and assigns a cause for his desiring to be absent." He also says that there are some plantation owners that allow their slaves to get a Pass whenever they want. Is this true or is it just Barrow's impression? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Nat Turner – from ''Confessions of Nat Turner'', 1831 ==<br />
The article on Nat Turner was an account that I had never heard before. I have heard of Nat Turner in the past but never did he come across in a way that made him seem truely insane. Are there other accounts of Nat Turner or his life which support this article? Is he seen as someone who is insane today? If he appears this way now I can only imagine what others thought of him back then. Why did people follow him once he said this? Were people just looking for reasons to revolt that they would believe anything and anyone? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Nat Turner is obviously all about the visions from God. Yet he says on page 250, that he heard a voice and, "withdrew [him]self as much as [his] situation would permit, from the intercourse of [his] fellow servants, for the avowed purpose of serving the Spirit more fully," He never explains the logic behind this action of withdrawing from his peers, and why would he do that when he needed support to fulfill his believed divine destiny? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In my opinion, slavery is an unjustifiable part of American history. Although Turner's actions made<br />
great historical impact, killing innocent people including women and children cannot be justified either. Turner seems like just another religious nut killing in the name of God. Do any people actually see these actions as heroic?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Nat Turner was interesting because of all the crazy opinions and feelings he had about religion and his place in life. He was very extreme in the source and i was curious as to what exactly were his real thoughts and what were those of the white lawyer that was interviewing him. It is probably not a long shot to assume that maybe all of this crazy talk was just the lawyer trying to justify to southern readers that this man was an exception to most slaves because he was insane, not because he was right in his actions towards white men. He also mentioned how kind his master was to him and how he could not complain. I find this hard to believe...did not he not plan and carry out a savage murder on his master and his entire family? I feel this may have been added in by the lawyer to preserve the integrity of white slave holders in southern America. How do we know what to take from slave sources as their own words since many of them were recorded by white men? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I agree with Jessie in that there is the possibility of the white men "editing" slaves' stories to make the slaves seem worse than they to paint the picture in favor of the whites. But I was also wondering about Nat Turner. He does seem to be kind of crazy, but is it possible he could be a little mentally unstable? When he was talking about the extreme religious beliefs, it kind of made me wonder if Nat Turner thought of himself as a prophet. He certainly does seem to generate that kind of belief, and especially with the African-Americans converting to Christianity and reading the Bible, specifically Moses. Is it possible that maybe Turner felt a calling? That he was the prophet chosen to let his people go? It would explain his craziness... -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I know that people taking religion too far has been around for a long while and it turning violent, the crusades, religious extremists today. But reading his "confessions" made me wonder just what drives people to do so. Nat Seemed almost arrogant at times when he was talking about his childhood and a question of, would he have been as extreme and dogged if those surrounding him hadn't treated him the way they did when he was a child? Or basically, what caused these extreme mannerisms to emerge and manifest in him so strongly?--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
== James Henry Hammond, 1845 “Letter to an English Abolitionist” ==<br />
I found it interesting in James Henry Hammond's Letter to an English Abolitionist, that he uses the Bible as the justification for slavery. It is interesting to me because a lot of abolitionist used the Bible to argue against slavery so it shows how differently interpret the Bible to meet their own ends. -Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
In The Confessions of Nat Turner it says that the Sprit tells him to return to the service of his master and if he did he would no be beaten. Could it be possible that the white man recording the confession was interpreting what Turner said differently? He could have been siding with the white saying that the slave liked working for their masters- but this is usually not true. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
Hammond reveals how egocentric he is when he begins to explain that all slaveowners treat their slaves kindly because it will increase profits.Surely not all slaveowners felt or acted this way. Was this egocentrism a common attribute to white, adult males in the south at this time? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
Hammond stated that no where in the Bible was slavery mentioned as a sin and he cited Moses in this argument as well. Were slaveowners aware that slaves were using Christianity and more specifically the story of Moses to argue for their freedom? -Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
Not only does Hammond reveal how egocentric he himself is, but he also reveals how egocentric and self-centered the majority of the elite whites who owned slaves were, especially plantation owners. It seems to me that these men didn't care what they were portrayed like as so long as it brought them money, and they were the least bit remorseful about slavery. Furthermore, in the Roark reading, it said that the planters largely made up the government and I was wondering if that contributed to the seceding of the Confederate States from the Union. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Frederick Law Olmsted, 1861, Cotton Kingdom ==<br />
Frederick Law Olmsted, "The Cotton Kingdom", 1861. This document portrays the ignorant and apathetic mindset of the poor white families of the South. It is evident that the wealthy plantation owners have manipulated and subjugated the poor whites into believing their façade of white supremacy when in essence it was about power and money. -Nick Scott<br />
<br />
In “The Cotton Kingdom”, the poor southerner sees the poor conditions of slavery and wishes its lack of existence and claims these opinions of other southerners in his position. This man also wishes the slaves not be let free in fear “they’d steal everything we made.” What is he referring to here: their lifestyle, properties, position in society or literally stealing? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The northerner, Olmsted, in “The Cotton Kingdom”, also sets up a poor community of small farmers. When looking over their lifestyle he mentions how they lived on barely anything, seemed to be producing a fair amount of cotton and corn, but still failed to advance in society. What kept the poor from at least being comfortable in an economic society that demanded the products these farmers were producing? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Cotton Kingdom by Frederick Law Olmsted it shows the differences between abolitionists and others who didn’t like slavery. The poor farmers did not really like the idea of abolishing slavery but they did want to get rid of the African Americans in the south. They felt that if the slaves were freed then there would be too many African Americans freed in the town. ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I still don't' really understand why poor farmers were pro-slavery, or anti-abolitionists. Weren't these large plantations their competition as far as selling cotton? Weren't these large plantations monopolizing the best soil, as well as the majority of the cotton economy in the south? I understand why these white farmers were fearful of an uprising, but wouldn't they prosper in a free labor economy? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In "Cotton Kingdom" i was surprised by the white farmer's attitude toward black slaves. I had thought that most white farmers if they didn't have slaves, wanted slaves and weren't happy about having to do what they considered "slave work". This family seemed different from what i had assumed. They almost seemed to feel sorry for the black slaves and pitied them their hard life. I won't go as far to assume that they wanted to free them, but i did feel that they may have sympathized with them a little? - Jessie Bright</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments328--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T01:08:15Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Debate topics or comparative questions ==<br />
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye<br />
<br />
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, "Balancing Work and Family" ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the article "Balancing Work and Family." I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren't that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn't need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as "real" as the ''perfect'' manicured family?<br />
-- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs. It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school. Also the attitude of if 'one can't go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.' I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50's wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other's dream possible. --Julie Robert<br />
<br />
I really liked this article too. It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids. It showed how women were torn between work and the family. For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job. It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It's a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can't even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Wilma Mankiller, "Indian Relocation" - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==<br />
<br />
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved. The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren't). You have to remember at this time the government wasn't too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Joanna Rubin, "An Unplanned Pregnancy" 1950s ==<br />
<br />
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn't feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today's society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo. Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn't lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about. I would have been scared out of my mind too. There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin's account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn't see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It's not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get "drinks" with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
== Ethel Barol Taylor, "Women Strike for Peace" ==<br />
The article "Women Strike for Peace" by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying "Take your children off milk," and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940's and the 1950's in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==<br />
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980's. Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Louisa Randall Church - "Parents, Architects of Peace" 1946 ==<br />
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I'm wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It's very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth's inquiry, I don't believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950's saw more of a return to the "cult of domesticity" way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog<br />
<br />
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==<br />
<br />
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today's society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn't teach them the discipline that children need to learn. I found this connection to today's world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity. It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society's ideals have permanently lowered an individual's self-esteem. I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn't want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
== Pauli Murray, 1947 ==<br />
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article. I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance. How strange is that? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==<br />
The article in MP, "Nonconformist Joyce Johnson..." was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn't matter, as long as you didn't go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions? I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this "escort" invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letter from black reader to ''The Ladder'', in 1957 ==<br />
<br />
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality. “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Betty Friedan, "The Problem That Has No Name" ==<br />
In this reading I believe that the "Problem That Has No Name" is some kind of depression. I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life. They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing. They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn't even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women. Betty Jeanne Bogg's reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much. She states that several times through out her reading. She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she "really enjoyed that job." (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz's article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that "wages gave women a feeling of independence." (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time. Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the "Problem That Has No Name." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==<br />
I actually felt a little dumb with this week's readings. There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was "Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970." They mentioned 'therapeutic abortions' and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about. I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading. --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) <br />
<br />
<br />
== Vicki Ruiz, "'Star Struck': Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950" ==</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments328--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-04-03T00:54:55Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Betty Jeanne Boggs, "Balancing Work and Family" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Debate topics or comparative questions ==<br />
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye<br />
<br />
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, "Balancing Work and Family" ==<br />
<br />
I really liked the article "Balancing Work and Family." I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren't that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn't need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as "real" as the ''perfect'' manicured family?<br />
-- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs. It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school. Also the attitude of if 'one can't go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.' I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50's wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other's dream possible. --Julie Robert<br />
<br />
I really liked this article too. It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids. It showed how women were torn between work and the family. For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job. It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It's a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can't even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Wilma Mankiller, "Indian Relocation" - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==<br />
<br />
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved. The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren't). You have to remember at this time the government wasn't too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Joanna Rubin, "An Unplanned Pregnancy" 1950s ==<br />
<br />
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn't feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today's society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo. Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn't lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about. I would have been scared out of my mind too. There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Ethel Barol Taylor, "Women Strike for Peace" ==<br />
The article "Women Strike for Peace" by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying "Take your children off milk," and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940's and the 1950's in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==<br />
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980's. Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
== Louisa Randall Church - "Parents, Architects of Peace" 1946 ==<br />
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I'm wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It's very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth's inquiry, I don't believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950's saw more of a return to the "cult of domesticity" way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog<br />
<br />
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==<br />
<br />
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today's society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn't teach them the discipline that children need to learn. I found this connection to today's world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity. It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society's ideals have permanently lowered an individual's self-esteem. I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn't want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
== Pauli Murray, 1947 ==<br />
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article. I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance. How strange is that? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==<br />
The article in MP, "Nonconformist Joyce Johnson..." was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn't matter, as long as you didn't go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions? I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this "escort" invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Letter from black reader to ''The Ladder'', in 1957 ==<br />
<br />
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality. “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Betty Friedan, "The Problem That Has No Name" ==<br />
In this reading I believe that the "Problem That Has No Name" is some kind of depression. I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life. They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing. They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn't even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women. Betty Jeanne Bogg's reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much. She states that several times through out her reading. She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she "really enjoyed that job." (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz's article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that "wages gave women a feeling of independence." (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time. Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the "Problem That Has No Name." --Michelle M.<br />
<br />
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==<br />
I actually felt a little dumb with this week's readings. There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was "Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970." They mentioned 'therapeutic abortions' and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about. I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading. --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) <br />
<br />
<br />
== Vicki Ruiz, "'Star Struck': Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950" ==</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments328--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T02:53:44Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis<br />
<br />
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history "Rosie the Riveter" by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In "Women in the Armed Forces" the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term "united patriotism" but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like "women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause." ---- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate Topics ==<br />
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
Debate Topic: In the preview to the Rosie the Riveter Articles in MAW, some historians argue that World War II was not a huge advance or watershed moment for women, because social and cultural expectations (women would go back into the home after the war, they were "temporary help") did not change significantly. Do you agree or disagree? <br />
Phil N.<br />
<br />
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs. I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day. I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn't like the job, she left it, and she wouldn't put up with a job that she didn't like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says "Most of the men was gone, and they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse." This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==<br />
Marion Stegeman's letters in "Women in the Armed Forces" are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings. Didn't the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do? It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of Marion Stegman's letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her "love" Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson<br />
<br />
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I LOVED Marion's letters! The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing. She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military. I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though. Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren't meant to be romanticized. They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have. Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm. But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base. The statement, "The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a ''girl'' taxiing by in a B.T.!" I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were. Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman's letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line "I can do what I'm told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don't have to." I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I really Loved Marion Stegeman's letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also thought Marion Stegeman's letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women's roles progressed. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==<br />
<br />
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman. Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis's amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage. The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother. "In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father." She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money. Her husband's attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family. They can't afford meat on the table, but he owns a car. He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake. Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone's mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn't well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn't say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won't have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing. Not to say this wasn't at all upsetting or hard to read, it's just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable. You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be. When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent. The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence. "What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?" It wasn't fair the way these people were treated and I'm just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs. She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father. Sone feels more like a criminal. She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I thought this part of the autobiography was both inspiring and moving and did a lot to emphasize the feeling of entering a Japanese internment camp. I liked that the family tried to make the best of it at the camp, though they had no idea what they were supposed to do. There was definitely a feeling of total bewilderment at being taken to some remote area and told to live in an "oversized chicken house." The final part, where Monica discusses her confusion, was the part that showed how confused the Japanese were. "I remembered the wire fence encircling us, and a knot of anger tightened in my breast. What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal? If there were accusations to be made, why hadn't I been given a fair trial?" She expresses how much anger and confusion these people felt as their own country put them in a prison. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==<br />
<br />
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak's "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" and the rest of the reading is interesting. She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience. Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above. She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they'll never feel that connected to a town again. Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==<br />
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading Matsumoto's "Japanese American Women during World War II" reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school. The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest. Did this happen often? How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned? Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This sounds all to familiar. When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I've often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us? I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although I thought Matsumoto's point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural "education" and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Nisei after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==<br />
<br />
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I don't think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background. I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well. What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal. Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child. She doesn't project a sense of hopelessness. Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==<br />
<br />
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I too found the photos very interesting. I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population. Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled? None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship. I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked this letter to the president. I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort. Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot. Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==<br />
<br />
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that "Many women thoroughly enjoy working & getting away from the home."(373) I'm sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn't like their jobs, for whatever reason. Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war. How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn't have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn't "click," and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today's society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
== Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==<br />
Did the WACs's performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_10_Questions/Comments328--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-03-27T02:41:32Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions ==<br />
I noticed in the movie in class and in the pictures, that the women were wearing pants. I think it is mentioned in a caption on page 179 in MAW, and several other times throughout the reading. This is quite a change from the ridiculous bicyling outfits we studied earlier. Was this a case of desperate times call for desperate measures or was it more acceptable during this time period for women to dress comfortably and efficiently at work/home while doing work? ---Landon Davis<br />
<br />
One thing i noticed throughout the MAW reading was a lack of overt patriotism. The oral history "Rosie the Riveter" by Hill focuses solely on the monetary aspects she gains by working. In "Women in the Armed Forces" the letters written by Stagemen only talk of how exciting it is, and allows her to stroke her ego as she talks about getting out of the plane and surprising all the men. I am not saying what they were doing was not patriotic because it was. But it does not sound like patriotism was the first reason alot of these women chose to work. Again in MP Bethune urges FDR to let African American women work. Bethune uses the term "united patriotism" but it seems more like a means to an end (equality) rather than the end in itself. Yerger expresses my skepticism on page 373 saying something like "women use the patriotic cause of their work as a front for the financial cause." ---- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate Topics ==<br />
Debate topic: did the war economically elevate families during its duration or impoverish them? -- Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Christina Hill, “Rosie the Riveter” ==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this article. It was interesting how they went to the school to train and recruit women for jobs. I found it interesting how these women went through several checks upon entering the building to work each day. I can understand the ID badge checks but why would they want to check their lunch? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also found this article interesting especially because Fanny Hill talks about if she didn't like the job, she left it, and she wouldn't put up with a job that she didn't like. I really enjoyed reading that about her because I think that above all else show what kind of woman she was, a strong woman who knew what she wanted. Although, I was also confused as to why they would check their lunches, did they check them on the way out as well? Was it a fear of spying that made them do that?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In this article, she talks about the hiring process and how there were so many more women than men. She says "Most of the men was gone, and they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse." This seems like the reverse of the pattern during the Depression. During that time, women were not hired unless they had serious economic need. Now that it is wartime, it seems as though the encouragement is for men to fight in the war, so they will not be hired unless they have an excuse to not go into war. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
== Marion Stegeman, “Women in the Armed Forces” ==<br />
Marion Stegeman's letters in "Women in the Armed Forces" are interesting when she talks about the time she landed at Ballinger Air Field in order to get her bearings. Didn't the Squn. Commander have anything more pressing to do? It all seems a little strange to me considering the fact that we are now living in the middle of a gas crisis. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
<br />
At the end of Marion Stegman's letters she expresses her concern to her mother about her "love" Ned and how she wants to marry him but also how she will work indefinitely. During this time when the number of women working rapidly increased, were long distance relationships even possible? Or were couples forced to go their own way for survival purposes and hope to reconnect safely at a later time? --- Rose Feguson<br />
<br />
Marion Stegeman’s letters to her mother about being a WASP really highlight both the excitement and dangers of being in the AirForce. I am sure Marion’s mother worried about her, and I would like to have read her responses… but I was wondering if the mother ever read the letters and regretted never having those types of opportunities in her lifetime? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I LOVED Marion's letters! The way she changed her signature to sum up the mood of the letter and just the overall love she seemed to have for being a WASP was amazing. She seems to be a perfect example of why women wanted to get involved with the military in some fashion -- they were doing the jobs men used to do and were getting excellent credit for their accomplishments and being commended for their attitudes and hard work as women in the military. I think the letter about some of her friends being shot down and her other friend breaking down and leaving are both important points as well, though. Both of those reinforce the fact that these jobs weren't meant to be romanticized. They may have been women doing these jobs, but they were just as dangerous and women did die like men would have. Just because it was a woman doing the job did not mean that they were safe from harm. But my favorite letter had to be the one where she was blown off course and had to land on a different base. The statement, "The Army cadets and instructors nearly fell out of their plane when they saw a ''girl'' taxiing by in a B.T.!" I think is a perfect summation of some of how impressive some of these women truly were. Rosie the Riveter should be proud. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed Marion Stegeman's letters in MAW. I particularly enjoyed the last letter when she discusses her relationship with Ned and also her decisions to be a WASP. I love the line "I can do what I'm told gracefully now only because -- underneath it all-- I know i don't have to." I think that this highlights the role of choice and freedom in the wartime effort. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I really Loved Marion Stegeman's letters. Especially since I had done my interview last week with my grandmother and I found out that she was part of the armed forces, not during WWII but after. But its cool to read these letters and know that a person in your family was part of it. I enjoyed reading the letters because they were full of so much emotion. There is such a difference between reading a male soldiers letters and a womans. The women show excitement and fear and sadness, they are great examples to know what these women were feeling at the time. I agree with Kelly, just her signature or her Dear Mother, or Mom, just showed what mood she was in. It also was surprising to me how accepting the men were with Stegeman and how much respect they gave her because of the talent she had. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also thought Marion Stegeman's letters were really fun to read. It was interesting how light-hearted and fun the letters were about flying the airplanes, as though it was no big deal that Marion was flying them when her mother could have never even dreamed of having the opportunity. These letters were great in highlighting how much women's roles progressed. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Hariette Arnow, “Wartime Migration” – ==<br />
<br />
Harriette Arnow’s excerpt on wartime migration discusses the confusion many women felt moving during WWII. It is clear from this article that wartime for women definitely wasn’t all opportunity and smiles, women also struggled to adapt and lived lives they probably never expected to. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
This is one of those pieces that exhibits the silent burden of the woman. Gertie will not realize her dream of owning a farm because her dream is shadowed by Clovis's amibition to live in the big city and earn a higher wage. The ability to remain in Kentucky is probably not an option; she is burdened with the inability to sufficiently support her family, and she carries the guilt of a mother. "In was in truth like her mother said: the children had a right to live with their father." She is in charge of putting a meal together that is supposed to please her husband, she waits on the family, and worries about money. Her husband's attitude seems irresponsible and insensitive to the situation he has placed his family. They can't afford meat on the table, but he owns a car. He puts his head down on the pillow and falls asleep while Gertie remains awake. Gertie is trapped in a world that is dictated to her.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Monica Sone, “Japanese Relocation” – ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this one because it actually suprised me. I expected it to be a far more depressing story and while it was very sad that these families had to deal with this I also felt like it was not nearly as sad as it could have been. I found Monica Sone's mother inspiring because she seemed to look for the good in everything. Although the tent/cabin/apartment wasn't well built, she was happy that there were dandelions, because it brought happiness into the room. As well as how she reacted to the latrine being close, she didn't say oh this is gonna smell she said oh look! we won't have to walk a long ways. I found that aspect of the story very very inspiring. - Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I agree with Elizabeth. When I began reading the introduction for this account and the autobiography itself, I was prepared for something much more depressing. Not to say this wasn't at all upsetting or hard to read, it's just that having the mother in the story and reading about how lighthearted she seemed to be made it seem like she made the stay more bearable. You could definitely see tensions between first generation immigrants and families that had been in the states longer because the older the men and women were, the more disgruntled they seemed to be. When Monica discussed her meal at the dining hall, the description of the Issei man she was next to compared to the description of the messy little girl next to her made that tension apparent. The last paragraph really got to me, though, when she brought up the wire fence. "What was I doing behind a fence like a criminal?" It wasn't fair the way these people were treated and I'm just grateful Monica was lucky enough to leave and go off to school. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I feel bad for how Monica Sone feels with not knowing where she belongs. She is not considered a U.S. citizen anymore nor is she a citizen from Japan such as her mother and father. Sone feels more like a criminal. She and her family have followed all the American government rules such as paying taxes and are still discriminated against because of her Japanese ancestry. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Ruth Marshak, “Women of Wartime Los Alamos” ==<br />
<br />
The contrast between the concluding sentence of Ruth Marshak's "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" and the rest of the reading is interesting. She describes life as being so dreary and containing so many hardships and then ends by saying it was a great experience. Is that due to the fact that certain portions of her account were left out by the editors of the book in which her account is located? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I had the same question that Justin remarks on above. She started off with describing the place as this horrible entity, but ends it with Los Alamos being an educational experience and that they'll never feel that connected to a town again. Are there parts left out? or does she write this article in this way so that she could throw the bit of twist at the end? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read "Women of Wartime Los Alamos" by Ruth Marshak, because it showed a less common war time experience. It sounds like the woman who was describing her experience in this selection didn’t have a family with children, were there other families that moved there with children as well. If so, were these communities complete with some kind of education system as well? She describes the social aspects but not much further. What were the women’s roles in Los Alamos if they didn’t have children and while the husbands were working in the lab? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
== Valerie Matsumoto, “Japanese American Women during WWII” ==<br />
Matsumoto discusses “Japanese American Women during World War II” in Unequal Sisters. Part of it deals with the resettlement of some of the women from the Japanese internment camps, most of them being younger women attending college. Today, people tend to associate college educated people, and students of college age, with more liberal ideals. Was that true during this time as well? Was it easier for younger women of Japanese decent to be accepted in a college or university setting than if they were older and returning to a workforce with people of older generations? And did geography also play a role in how well or readily they were accepted? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading Matsumoto's "Japanese American Women during World War II" reminded me of a story I had to read in English class during high school. The other story said that people would destroy the houses of Japanese-Americans and take what they wanted, destroying the rest. Did this happen often? How did women deal with a destroyed home when they returned? Did families return to the homes and properties they had before the internments? Were they able to? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The article in US on the Japanese women I thought was interesting because right after the bombing of Pearl Harbor all of the Japanese were put in camps, and the Americans saw them as a threat, therefore putting them into these camps as a way to keep a watchfull eye on them as if they were to do something or had some part in why the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This sounds all to familiar. When 9-11 happened Americans suddenly saw all middle easterners as a threat that were in the US. Although we did not throw them into camps, I remember watching the news and how they interviewed some immagrant middle easterners and how now they were treated differently.I've often wondered if the role was reveresed and an American white or black did something horrific in another country if other races would change the way the think of us, but by saying that what do other races, ethnicities think of us? I also thought how amazing it was that the Japanese found something good out of being kept in these camps, and utilized new skills they formed once they were out and used it to their advantage.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
Although I thought Matsumoto's point of view was interesting, I was not expecting to be persuaded that internment had benefits. I was upset that she went into little detail and provided few primary sources documenting the overall damage this event caused. Each time she mentioned the cultural "education" and opportunities these women were experiencing I was waiting for an explanation about the lack of hope and psychological damage that went along with it. I was suprised that there was not a sense of resentment towards American ideals by the Japanese after this experience. I felt like some piece of the story of Japanese American women during internment was missing. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s ==<br />
<br />
In MP, I found it interesting to read about Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston whose father would not allow her to be confirmed in the Catholic church. He felt strongly that if she were confirmed she would never marry, especially a nice Japanese boy which is what he wanted. Was this the case with most girls around her age, with all religions? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I don't think that the Japanese are unique in wanting a daughter to marry a man from the same ethnic background. I think that this has been a trait exhibited by other nationalities as well. What did strike me in this piece was a sense of creating an existence that seemed normal. Jeanne talked about school and after school activities like any other child. She doesn't project a sense of hopelessness. Instead she continues to study and develops interests in activities that she will continue once she leaves the internment camp.--LisaM<br />
<br />
== Photograph collections at Library of Congress ==<br />
<br />
I thought the photos of women during WWII were extremely interesting and mostly promote the stereotypical female experience on the home front. Are there any images that reflect the struggles that women faced at this time? How tired they were? The moving, long hours, and household duties? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I too found the photos very interesting. I was curious as to accurate they are for the overall population. Most seemed to show happy women who were excited to be doing their part but what about those that struggled? None of the picture really showed any kind of real hardship. I would have liked to see a larger variety of photos. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== Mary McLeod Bethune on black women and the war effort, 1940 ==<br />
<br />
I really liked this letter to the president. I was impressed that a black women would write to the president to encourage him to allow black women to work for the war effort. Bethune really seems to show how sincere her desire is to serve her country and wants to be given an equal shot. Did other black women write similar letters? What other ways did theses women try to find a way to serve?-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I also think it is great that African American women wrote to the president urging him to allow colored women job opportunities during the war. Did Roosevelt really make much of an effort to help African American women with decent jobs? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Norma Yerger Queen, daycare worker in 1944 ==<br />
<br />
The second article (Mrs. Norma Yerger) she makes the statement that "Many women thoroughly enjoy working & getting away from the home."(373) I'm sure many did enjoy their jobs since some working conditions had improved but probably there were just as many who didn't like their jobs, for whatever reason. Also relating that statement to the movie we watched in class; there was one part were the women were ok with giving their job back to the man who once had the position before going off to war. How true is that? Were many simply ok with going back to being house wife and home maker, or did they really enjoy their job enough like the article says, therefore not wanting to give up their job.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I found this article slightly amusing.I strongly agree with how she only would work 4 days a week so she could keep up with the house work. She shouldn't have to work all week and come home and do everything then go to bed and start all over again. What amuses me was that she talks about how her and her husband would try to split the house work but it just never worked out. He always had something to do, but so did Queen, its just because she was a woman domestic work was always on her list of things to do. I just really liked when she said when we did the house work it just didn't "click," and the fact that she is ok with this is even more amusing. I know as a girl in today's society if I were her I would not allow my husband to read the paper while I bust my butt cleaning everything in the house. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
== Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean, 1953 ==<br />
Did the WACs's performance in the 5th Army have any influence on how they were treated as military personnel after World War II? --Justin Mattos</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T11:44:43Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamins Rushes "Thoughts upon the mode of education proper in a republic" I thought he made a lot of good points about the school system and how long we should be there and why we should be there for that span of our lives. I liked how he tied together goverenment with education. I dont however understand the line "A christina cannot fail of being a reupblican".- Bryan Quintana <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In class the other day, we talked about how the idea of public education for men also led to a discussion of educating women so they could teach their sons about how to be good citizens under the new form of government. Therefore, I found it interesting to see that Rush advocated this idea at the end of his document. He seemed very adament about the necessity of educating women in order to better educate men. This idea showed that women really did have a prominent political role in society. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In Richard Allens "Founds the first african methodist church" its very clear how religious richard along with his whole family. Richard said him along with his brother would work all night and day to get their work done if they had to so his master wouldnt think that religion wasnt hindering their work but it was helping it. "We left our masters house, and I may truly say it was like leavign or fathers house", this shows how caring their master was towards them and how they basically grew up with a father figure even after most of his family got sold away. I believe his master helped shape the person he eventually became to be.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In this piece, Madison makes a very insightful claim about what he views as a characteristic in the nature man. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." As it turns out, this statement rang true far beyond his years in the context of AMERICAN society, with the formation of worker's unions, associations of every sort, political action groups, etc. etc, factions shaped the face of this nation. But I would ask, is this truly a characteristic of human nature, or simply a characteristic that has come to be true of American society? On what support would he have formed this notion? Do you believe he is correct?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
After reading Federalist #10, I decided that if I was alive in 1787 and had read this, I would have sided with the Federalists. I think that Madison does a great job at achieving the goal of attempting to persuade people to ratify the constitution. This is because it sounds like he simply published a speech. I was wondering if the Federalists ever read or spoke what they wrote in the Federalist Papers? I think that the flow and word usage really convey a strong sense of emotion that I usually find when listening to good public speakers but rarely when reading a document. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I am not sure how representative this piece is of political pieces of the time, but I did notice Warren's writing seems extremely overdramatized. She uses language like "tyranny", "wanton lust of domination", "secret intrigues", "shrine of ambition", "many-headed monster", etc. I did recognize she had a history in the field of drama and entertainment as a poet and a playwright. Is this merely a peculiarity in the way this particular author chooses to write or is this a typical persuasion piece in the vein of others of the time? Did most anti-federalists really see this new constitution as a tyrannical monster? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Jefferson continually compared blacks to whites in such things as intelligence, emotion, physical, etc. I also found it interesting that he wanted to send the freed slaves off on their own and seperate them from whites because he feared that because of the tensions between the two races, one would destroy the other. Did lots of Americans who were in favor of emancipation also favor moving the blacks elsewhere? Or was that just for the Southern states where there was a greater population of slaves? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T11:44:29Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamins Rushes "Thoughts upon the mode of education proper in a republic" I thought he made a lot of good points about the school system and how long we should be there and why we should be there for that span of our lives. I liked how he tied together goverenment with education. I dont however understand the line "A christina cannot fail of being a reupblican".- Bryan Quintana <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In class the other day, we talked about how the idea of public education for men also led to a discussion of educating women so they could teach their sons about how to be good citizens under the new form of government. Therefore, I found it interesting to see that Rush advocated this idea at the end of his document. He seemed very adament about the necessity of educating women in order to better educate men. This idea showed that women really did have a prominent political role in society. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In Richard Allens "Founds the first african methodist church" its very clear how religious richard along with his whole family. Richard said him along with his brother would work all night and day to get their work done if they had to so his master wouldnt think that religion wasnt hindering their work but it was helping it. "We left our masters house, and I may truly say it was like leavign or fathers house", this shows how caring their master was towards them and how they basically grew up with a father figure even after most of his family got sold away. I believe his master helped shape the person he eventually became to be.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In this piece, Madison makes a very insightful claim about what he views as a characteristic in the nature man. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." As it turns out, this statement rang true far beyond his years in the context of AMERICAN society, with the formation of worker's unions, associations of every sort, political action groups, etc. etc, factions shaped the face of this nation. But I would ask, is this truly a characteristic of human nature, or simply a characteristic that has come to be true of American society? On what support would he have formed this notion? Do you believe he is correct?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
After reading Federalist #10, I decided that if I was alive in 1787 and had read this, I would have sided with the Federalists. I think that Madison does a great job at achieving the goal of attempting to persuade people to ratify the constitution. This is because it sounds like he simply published a speech. I was wondering if the Federalists ever read or spoke what they wrote in the Federalist Papers? I think that the flow and word usage really convey a strong sense of emotion that I usually find when listening to good public speakers, but rarely when reading a document. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I am not sure how representative this piece is of political pieces of the time, but I did notice Warren's writing seems extremely overdramatized. She uses language like "tyranny", "wanton lust of domination", "secret intrigues", "shrine of ambition", "many-headed monster", etc. I did recognize she had a history in the field of drama and entertainment as a poet and a playwright. Is this merely a peculiarity in the way this particular author chooses to write or is this a typical persuasion piece in the vein of others of the time? Did most anti-federalists really see this new constitution as a tyrannical monster? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Jefferson continually compared blacks to whites in such things as intelligence, emotion, physical, etc. I also found it interesting that he wanted to send the freed slaves off on their own and seperate them from whites because he feared that because of the tensions between the two races, one would destroy the other. Did lots of Americans who were in favor of emancipation also favor moving the blacks elsewhere? Or was that just for the Southern states where there was a greater population of slaves? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T11:43:41Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamins Rushes "Thoughts upon the mode of education proper in a republic" I thought he made a lot of good points about the school system and how long we should be there and why we should be there for that span of our lives. I liked how he tied together goverenment with education. I dont however understand the line "A christina cannot fail of being a reupblican".- Bryan Quintana <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In class the other day, we talked about how the idea of public education for men also led to a discussion of educating women so they could teach their sons about how to be good citizens under the new form of government. Therefore, I found it interesting to see that Rush advocated this idea at the end of his document. He seemed very adament about the necessity of educating women in order to better educate men. This idea showed that women really did have a prominent political role in society. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In Richard Allens "Founds the first african methodist church" its very clear how religious richard along with his whole family. Richard said him along with his brother would work all night and day to get their work done if they had to so his master wouldnt think that religion wasnt hindering their work but it was helping it. "We left our masters house, and I may truly say it was like leavign or fathers house", this shows how caring their master was towards them and how they basically grew up with a father figure even after most of his family got sold away. I believe his master helped shape the person he eventually became to be.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In this piece, Madison makes a very insightful claim about what he views as a characteristic in the nature man. "The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society." As it turns out, this statement rang true far beyond his years in the context of AMERICAN society, with the formation of worker's unions, associations of every sort, political action groups, etc. etc, factions shaped the face of this nation. But I would ask, is this truly a characteristic of human nature, or simply a characteristic that has come to be true of American society? On what support would he have formed this notion? Do you believe he is correct?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
After reading Federalist #10, I decided that if I was alive in 1787 and had read this, I would have sided with the Federalists. I think that Madison does a great job at achieving the goal of attempting to persuade people to ratify the constitution. This is because it sounds like he simply published a speech. I was wondering if the Federalists ever read or spoke what they wrote in the Federalist Papers? I think that the flow and word usage really conveys a strong sense of emotion that I usually find when listening to good public speakers, but rarely when reading a document. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I am not sure how representative this piece is of political pieces of the time, but I did notice Warren's writing seems extremely overdramatized. She uses language like "tyranny", "wanton lust of domination", "secret intrigues", "shrine of ambition", "many-headed monster", etc. I did recognize she had a history in the field of drama and entertainment as a poet and a playwright. Is this merely a peculiarity in the way this particular author chooses to write or is this a typical persuasion piece in the vein of others of the time? Did most anti-federalists really see this new constitution as a tyrannical monster? -Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Jefferson continually compared blacks to whites in such things as intelligence, emotion, physical, etc. I also found it interesting that he wanted to send the freed slaves off on their own and seperate them from whites because he feared that because of the tensions between the two races, one would destroy the other. Did lots of Americans who were in favor of emancipation also favor moving the blacks elsewhere? Or was that just for the Southern states where there was a greater population of slaves? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash against women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
Priscilla Mason pointed out that women were not generally accepted in the Church, the Bar, and the Senate. I find it interesting that she would blame this on men... That it was men's fault. Maybe i'm just behind the times here... It seems to me that by blaming men, she would be blaming God for not allowing women to orate because it was the Bible that gave the men the idea, when it says that women shoudl not teach/preach to men. I suppose the society was just to far out of the religious stage though? --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
AWWW! I feel so bad for this category!!! But not to fear. I wont let it be left out and empty. It happens to be that I found some interesting things. <br />
First... I always thought that assembly lines were developed by Henry Ford.... But Hamilton seems to be describing just that here when he is talking about the men applying undivided attention to their single object. It sounds like assembly line to me. <br />
And then Second... it seems interesting how much the attitude has changed about immigration. Here Hamilton expresses a welcoming of immigrant workers... and what a turn around compared with today. It's certainly interesting to say the least. <br />
Well, thats all. HOpefully this category feels more loved now. :) --Jessica Lawrie<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_8_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-14T05:18:04Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Benjamin Rush, "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic," 1786 ==<br />
"Thoughts Upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" -- I thought Rush's position on education was interesting. His essay did come off, as someone menitoned earlier, as a form of propaganda used to sway parents into enrolling their children in school. As discussed in class, it wasn't until after the American Revolution when the notion of public education began. Was Benjamin Rush advocating public education controlled by Congress or the government to ensure a uniform people? It seems that according to his ideas as put forth in his essay he would be a major supporter of public education. Rush also barely touches upon the subject of women in education. In the brief paragraph dedicated to education women, he seems to advocate the republican mother ideals. I realize that times are different now--some studies show that there are more women in college than men nationwide and campuses have sort of leveled out as far as gender differences are--but surely educating women, especially in the ideas of a republican country, deserved more thought than a simple paragraph at the end of an essay, which to me seemed more of an afterthought than a part of the actual essay. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic" I found it interesting that the writer of this passage states that the only useful foundation for a republican government is in a religion thats main focus is that of Jesus Christ. Later on he mentions "a Chirstian cannot fail of being a republican, for every precept of the Gospel inculcates those degrees of humility, self-denial, and brotherly kindness..." And just as people thought about the different parties back when this was written so do people in the 20th century and beyond think about religion and politics, just now there is a fight betweeen whether or not to keep church and state seperate but the different political parties can be thought of being composed of generally more religious people in the republican side.-Paul Carter<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Education it mentioned education specifically in the state of Pennsylvania, is this where greater education systems started? Does this have anything to do with why that state has such a great education system now? Also, the article talks about religion being a foundation of education. Does this ultimately contribute to the seperation of church and state? And why doesn't this influence education today?--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I find it very interesting that in Benjamin Rush's Thoughts upon the Mode of Education, he states that in order to create a useful and established education the republic should lay the foundation in religion. He even captailizes the word, placing more emphasize. How far have we come, or fallen, that now teachers in public schools can not mention religion, without getting threats. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought that Benjamin Rush’s proposal was very interesting because he talks about the importance of religion. I understand why Christianity became the religion of America, but why was there no “Church of America” as there was a Church of England? Were there just too many branches of Christianity present during this time for only one to be agreed on? -Emily King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush's "Thoughts upon the Mode if Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" I found myself wondering time and time again what any of what he was talking about had to do with education. He goes on and on about religion and while that's all fine and well he didn't tie it to education at all. So my question is what does anything that Rush was talking about have to do with education?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
Another question I had when reading Rush's speech/thoughts is that while he says he wants to eliminate prejudices doesn't what he says create more prejudices? He tells them what he doesn't want the country's youth to do but then he also goes on to propose solutions that seem to create even more. Shouldn't he be making suggestions that work to eliminate these thoughts instead of just providing more fuel for the fire?? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I found "Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic, 1786" really interesting. I shows how different the education system has become. For one thing there isn't the idea that religion really has a place in the school system, whereas Benjamin Rush seems to think that a Christian backed education is the best route. He even thought, "that I had rather see the opinions of Confucious or Mohammed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles." For him some of any religion was much preferred to no religion at all. There are very different movements in public education today. Also, he wanted students to have a "SUPREME REGARD FOR THEIR COUNTRY." He also continues to advocate this extreme devotion and complete acceptance of America. Today there seems to be more of a movement of looking at negatives of people and actions instead of glorifying America. Like Thomas Jefferson for example, the focus seems to often on Sally Hemmings and his possible children. Is there a better way to look at this? Doesn't it seem better to look at both the negatives and the positives so instead of blindly glorifying the nation or condemning it, it seems better to combine the two approaches to try and get a better picture.--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I have a few short comments and questions about a couple of the articles. First, I found that while reading Benjamin Rush's ''Thoughts upon the Mode of Education''....that it sounded an awful lot like propaganda. It seems as though the point of education was to ensure that boys were raised to put their country before all else and to dedicate themselves to the servitude of America and to the Constitution. Did everyone at this time agree that education should center around such strong convictions toward patriotism? Did both federalists and anti-federalists support this strong foundation of patriotism? Why did Rush so vehemently argue that "man is naturally an ungovernable animal"? Was this a common belief? -- Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
In Benjamin Rush’s Thoughts, I found it interesting Rush wanted to use education to produce people with uniform thoughts. His argument claimed, “Our schools of learning, by producing general and uniform system of education, will render the mass of the people more homogeneous and thereby fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.” Now in a country defined by its different perspectives and individualities it seems strange for Rush to focus on one uniform thought for all. Did others share his idea of a uniform people? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The feeling I get from Benjamin Rush's thoughts is that he supported educating women. He wanted to keep them separate, but he said that they should be taught the 'usual branches of female education' but that they should also be intructed in liberty and governent so they could pass these on to their children. Not many men of this time supported education for women and I thought it was interesting that Rush did. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
I really liked the connection that Rush makes, whether or not it was intentional or not, between the chains of slavery that have bound thousands of Africans and the chains that have bound science and "progressive nature." I think that this is a very symbolic measure and I wonder if Rush did this on purpose? Was he a supporter of emancipation? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush fought so hard to make Christianity the backbone of education and later people fought so hard to make and keep them completely separate. I also thought that it was interesting how Rush said that various virtues would be taught to students such as "he must be taught to love his fellow creatures in every part of the world, but he must cherish with a more intense and peculiar affection the citizens on Pennsylvania and the United States." I understand putting your country first, but it seems to me to be a little extreme and almost hypocritical to teach children to love everyone, but not as much as Americans. -Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In Rush's document, I noticed how he is constantly trying to explain essencailly the perfect cizen. He does this by using religion as his basis of education, having no seperation of church and state. I also found it interesting that he says that he would even accept other religions that tought the belief of one god to the prospect of having no religious based education. He is, for the most part, describing something that is extreemly hard to come by and very hard to create, because no one is that perfect. It is almost like he wants to create a perfect army of robots for Pennsylvania and eventually the rest of the United States...I also found it interesting how he wrote about teaching women so that they can beging teaching the perfect citizens while they are really little. It is as it was explained in class, about how women, and mothers especially, became very important in the United States. -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
Many statements made by Rush in this essay seem to promote uniformity as opposed to individualism, which is a mindset we see very clearly in America today. Were Americans more willing to conform to a set social standard of living? ---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I also find it interesting that Benjamin Rush believes that the "only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in RELIGION". I think that this paper gives an interesting view of the education system when it first began. We take for granted the idea of separation of church and state and It makes me wonder what our education system would be like today if we did not have separation of church and state. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Richard Allen Founds the AME Church, 1833 ==<br />
In Richard Allen's Life, Experience, and Gospel Labours I thought it was very interesting how his religion influenced his positive attitude and Im sure influencial on many African Americans at the time. I was wondering if more African Americans followed him after this and created more African American churches. I feel like it wasnt common for slave holders to be so kind and encouraging to their slaves independence. Is the reason for his success due mostly to his relationship with his owner?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church" the attitude towards slaves has definitely changed. The description of life with his owner appears fairly easy and enjoyable, later when his master cannot afford to keep him, Allen is asked to buy his freedom. Allen goes to work, what was the general feeling on paying blacks at this time? There doesn't seem to be much fear of the Africans having religion at this point in time, it just cannot be in the same church as the whites. When did the fear of the slaves having equality die down? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In Richard Allen Founds the First African Methodist Church, it shows the blacks are gradually given more freedom, it is also shown that Allen's master allows him and his sisters to attend meetings once a week for church. one can see that Allen has a strong fatih in religion in that it develops his opptimistic views about everything. However, i find it to be very interesting that blacks are able to set up a church this fast when slavery is still practiced. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that Richard and his owner had such a family-like relationship. Was this a common attitude after the war between slaves and masters? Did it contribute to the attitude that northern colonists had when they started to not allow slavery? --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
What first inspired Richard Allen to have that cathartic moment when he discovered God? He said that it was at least in his late twenties in the passage where he describes first being "awakened", " Until I was upwards of twenty years of age, during which time I was awakened and brought to see myself.... without the mercy of God" His mom found God, but nowhere in the passage does he describe his finding of God.--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
I found it very, very interesting that Allen had such a good and strong relationship with his master. It is very rare that one hears about a good relationship between slave and master, and I just wonder how much of a rarity it was? ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
I noticed that in Allen's document, he mentioned "continental money"(p.144) a couple of times. Because I know that the colonists would pay for run-away slaves in Spanish gold...Is this significant? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
== James Madison, Federalist #10, 1787 ==<br />
<br />
Madison's "Federalist #10" left me pretty confused because of the way it was worded. He says, "...which were echoed from one end of the continent to the other," but does he actually mean the literal words? When he refers to the continent does he just mean the United States or does he actually mean all the US and whatever is west of it, like the territories and Indian lands?<br />
-Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Mercy Otis Warren, Observations on the New Constitution, 1788 ==<br />
I found it interesting Marty Otis Warren in 1788 wrote an educational opposition to the constitution. In this time women weren’t equals to men and she is noted as a “brilliant and exceptionally well educated women.” Was her argument read and noted in this time? Was she taken seriously as an educated woman or is this document just being noted now for its well written arguments against the Constitution? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
“Observations on the New Constitution” by Mercy Otis Warren was a very interesting excerpt in my opinion. It immediately reminded me of the letters of Abigail Adams (to her husband) in that they both pose an intriguing womanly view on the current political issues of their time. Both Mercy and Abigail were brave women to be willing to put themselves out there and give their opinions, since it was such taboo for women to do so. In the introduction it mentions that Mercy Otis Warren published her work using a pseudonym by the name of “a Columbian Patriot.” I was wondering how exactly it was uncovered that it was in fact Mercy and not a Columbian Patriot. Did she get in trouble…or was it not until after her death that she was revealed as the true author? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
Since Mercy Otis Warren was actually the author of Observations on the New Constitution, I found it interesting that her main points focused on the structure of the legal system. As a women, who wrote many works, would she not be more concerned about the stronger possibility of inequality toward women with this Constitution than the role of women previously during war times, or would that have been to conspicuous to bring up inequality toward women from the point of view of the "male" who was writing this article at this time? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson's Notes of the State of Virginia, 1782 ==<br />
I found the document ''Thomas Jefferson on Slavery and Race'' interesting because how he compares whites to blacks in the aspect of logic/reason and physical attributes in order to justice his prejudices. My question is did most whites of this era think like Thomas Jefferson, in part to understand who the blacks were and if black slavery was justifiable? or did they have such a superiority complex that they didn't give themselves a chance to think like Thomas Jefferson? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, he talks about the physical differences between blacks and whites, how there are “physical distinctions proving a difference in race”. Jefferson uses this reasoning to justify the separation of freed slaves into a separate state, but doesn’t this just confirm the way that most white slaveholders were thinking to justify having slaves in the first place? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting the attitude that Thomas Jefferson had on slaves. I have always known that Thomas Jefferson was not the "pro abolition of slavery" nice guy that some people thought, but when most of the North was ending slavery, he seemed to have such a bad attitude in this writing toward slaves. I would think that he would have been for slavery with his bad attitude towards them. --Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
When we look back on the period of slavery, northerners are always touted as being the "Forward and progressive ones". However, even in the foreword it says "Jefferson's expplination.... discloses racial views that were widespread among white Maericans, North and South. Two questoins came to my mind. Do we look back and demonize the south for their beliefs, when the North was just as guilty, because of the northerners winning the civil war? And had the climate in the north been as warm and able to grow crops as intensively as the south, would they have ended up doing the same thing as the south (employing slavery as heavily).--Kathleen Dray<br />
<br />
In this document i found the Southern racial views were absurd! Yes the slaves had low kidney excretions because they had no water or fluids to discrete! They sweated a lot because they worked obscene and absurd hours! they didn't sleep much because it was too hot or too cold and they were improperly clothed amongst other things. Is Jefferson's document the first document to so blatanlty expose these radically infallible, inexcusable, and twisted views of slavery in the South? If not, were there other recorded documents insighting or explaining the reasons why emancipation would never occur, also did abolitionists jump on these radical views and claims that slaves were essentially created to work and that every bodily function served the good of work and labor and slavery? -Landon James<br />
<br />
If Congress was finally realizing that slavery was bad, why didn't they strive to abolish it entirely? Furthermore, I see a strong connection bewteen the financial and economic status of early America, one dependent on slave labor, and that of our current society, one dependent on immigrant labor. If all the slaves left the economy would crash as would our if all the Mexicans left. Did Congress consider the economic downfall of their country in determining not to abolish slavery entirely? - Landon James<br />
<br />
I am in the Great Lives class this semester, and one of the lectures that we had was Professor Crawley lecturing on Thomas Jefferson. He brought up this document, and many of the aspects in it. I was therefore quite interested in actually reading it, although I had a general idea before I started as to what I would find. I was at the time, and again during the reading, completely taken back by Jefferson’s idea that freed slaves should be colonized, and kept separate from whites. And yet, in the reading, his reasons for this colonization, although I certainly do not agree with them, seem fairly sound: “Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Are these not the roots of the very race issues that plague our nation to this day? While I by no means agree with what Jefferson was suggesting in the complete re-colonization of the freed slaves, I think his insight that simply freeing the slaves would not bring about a solution; in fact, these are issues that are still the forefront of modern prejudices, and these are the issues that need to be addressed and dealt with. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
Also in relation to the Thomas Jefferson document, I just thought I would share a few things that Professor Crawley informed us of in his Great Lives lecture in regard to Jefferson. (And again, I am not trying to make allowances for slavery AT ALL, I’m simply sharing some information.) Professor Crawley told us that people often question why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves. While I think the document that we read does a pretty good job of illustrating Jefferson’s racism, there are also several other reasons and here I quote from Professor Crawley. First, Jefferson knew that the time was not right to abolish slavery; the country was newly formed and the drastic change to people’s way of life would have caused major backlash. Second, Jefferson was not the type of person to martyr himself that he himself was not wholly invested in. Third, and perhaps most logical for the man himself, Jefferson was in debt for his entire life and freeing his slaves would have wreaked havoc on his financial situation. Freeing his slaves would have brought his creditors down up on him. I think it’s helpful to have some reasons why Jefferson did not just free all his slaves, as people often wonder. ~Kristen Lonsdorf<br />
<br />
As a whole, I found that the “Notes on the State of Virginia” was Thomas Jefferson’s way of expressing his confusion towards the present as well as the future state of the new American society, especially concerning the laws of slavery. Throughout his writing, it is clear that Jefferson is both hopeful as well as anxious-indicating his conflicted views on where exactly the new Nation was headed, and whether or not it was for better or for worse. He evidently was still trying to work everything out in his head since it seems that he doesn’t really have a strong argument as to why exactly he believed in what he was writing. For example, when he writes about the differences in appearances between whites and blacks as a justification for two separate races, I doubt that these are his true feelings… ~and if they are, then he obviously didn’t see it as a negative aspect of society like most people did. Perhaps Jefferson was writing this simply to appease the average white man while still trying to get his point across? ~Megan Tisdelle~<br />
<br />
== William Manning, The Key of Libberty, 1798 ==<br />
In William Manning's "The Key of Libbety, 1798", I found the part about education interesting. The author must have been talking about the eastern sections of the states, especially in NC and VA, as he said "nor none have too far to travel". The western farmers were extremely spread out. How did the easterner's face this challenge? Or did they ignore the west altogether, seeing as they will never be the ones that have the largest say in government issues? Also, why were women required 6 more weeks of schooling than men? Was is because they were supposed to "teach their male children how to grow up to live successfully in a republic"? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
Manning's article made several points I would not have expected to hear about from Americans during 1798. Did other people support his pushes for free education even through the college level? And if they did, why is free college education not present in the US? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
== Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason, Valedictory addresses at the Young Ladies Academy of Philadelphia, 1792, 1793. ==<br />
I think that it is interesting that in the documents from the Education of Young Women the first valedictory address was done by male and it addresses the need for women’s education. The second was a female who almost seemed apologetic for being chosen to speak but then begins to defend the need for women to speak publicly. The last address was also from a female and she wanted more places for women to be able to speak publicly. There is such a difference in the speeches between the first one done in 1792 and the last one done in 1793. Did women start to have more freedom of speech once they were educated in the 1790s? ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
<br />
In her speech, Molly Wallace, remarks upon the unpracacticle nature of men's education. She questions,"Why is a boy diligentlly anc carefully taught the Latin, the Greek, or the Hebrew language, in which he will seldom have occasion, either to write or converse" With these remarks, is Wallace getting at the idea that the women were taught much more practicle and appilicable subjects. And if so, were they only done so becuase this was a way to keep the women inferior to the men because they were thought as unable to grow with such intellect. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
In Education for Young Women, it seems as if both girls were not satisfied with their education at the academy for women. Mason states that women are not just wife, mother, and a friend but they are someone who also wants an education to be attorneys and such and there are no laws that prohibits this. --Eun Yi<br />
<br />
I really liked Molly Wallace's Valedictory Address. I thought it was interesting that given the oppourtunity to speak in public she uses it to explain how she thinks it is unfair the way men are expected to do certain things like public speaking while for a women it is unlikely. I particularly liked her comment on how it was alright women to know how to write yet speaking in public was not really permisable. I liked it because it gives a different view of women at this time. For the most part we are shown women who are either content with their place, or if not content they don't challenge it. I also thought it was interesting to read what the women were taught in schools. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The speakers of the document "Education for Young Women" have different views of female education. Sproat believes the education is for women to be able to comprehend society and learn the language so they can actively listen to the changes being made. The women tend to make points on the men having a more thorough education, and it not being fair. Educating women had its benefits in raising the younger generations, but did the society see women's education as a drawback because women were looking for equality and losing that sense of being inferior to men as the female role? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I thought the differnce between Molly Wallace's valedictory address and Priscilla Mason's address was interesting. Wallace takes a more timid position while suggesting the benefits of women's education. A year later Mason takes a much more radical stance, suggesting that not only is womens education essential, but places blame on men for holding women back. I was wondering how this speech would have been received by the public? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In Priscilla Mason's address she says "...who will say that the female mind is incapable?" I cannot tell if she is being sarcastic or not. Was there a lot of sexism/backlash again women getting a good education from men at the time?- Jake Guralnik<br />
<br />
== Mary Dewees Moves West to Kentucky, Journal 1788-1789 ==<br />
In Mary Dewee's Move West I was wondering if they took the Ohio River for the majority of the trip, because going along with her journal, it seems they do. Once off the river, do they just walk to Lexington? This all seems very labour intensive and risky. Do you think it was really worth it?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
From "Journal, 1788-1789", I was quite intrigued. Many people seemed to have offered their homes as lodging and their food to travelers headed west. Was this an unwritten "requirement" from the people? Would someone who never hosted travelers be seen as a bad person? Also, especially when the family was crossing the Appalachians, they seemed to just stop by a random house. Was it sort of like the underground railroad and the families traveling knew who would take them in for a night? Or was it stop by a random house as dusk came to find a place to stay? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, Dewees' journal made me wonder how many people moved westward during this time? Who was most likely to make this move? Finally, I was wondering how slave owners reacted to Hamilton's views on manufacturing? Did they worry that factories would make their plantations obsolete? Were factories even a threat to the southern plantation economy? Were slaves more likely to work in these factories? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I found it funny the Mary Dewees seems so concerned with her own and others physical appearances while making the rough journey west. First she comments on the dirty disposition of the Scott Irish that they camp with. She later mentions how while traveling on the boat, her family would not take the invitations to come ashore because they did not have their proper clothes with them. Why would appearance have been of any concern to the pioneers in the west at this time?--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I also wonder how many people moved west. Was it common for people to know those who moved, or was it something where everyone knew of just one person who dared? I want to know if there was much gossip about it-were people always discussing the pros and cons of moving out west? Were a lot of people opposed, treating it as a scam like we treat infomercials today?--Gracie Ofslager<br />
<br />
Mary Dewees speaks of the indians causing mischeif around November 20th. Wouldn't the Native Americans try to attack all settlers moving out west?---Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Alexander Hamilton’s Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 1791 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== George Washington’s “Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” 1796 ==<br />
<br />
I always loved George Washington's ''Farewell Address to the People of the United States, 1796'' because everything that he warned the newly formed U.S. has come true. He stated not to create political parties based on geography, in part to prevent in-fighting, we did. The most notorious of in-fighting was the American Civil War, which almost cost us our country. Also, he stated not to create alliances with European powers, in part to keep us safe and uninvolved in other nation's affairs. Look at our situation in the world today; many nations are angry with us because we can't keep our nose (so to speak) out of their business. Though Washington warned us of these dangers, he is in part responsible for causing Americans to do so. During his presidency he supported the Federalists. Thus, he put himself into opposition to Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. Basically one could call Washington a hypocrite and to heed his own warnings. Same scenario with his warning of political alliances; since he favored the Federalist view he supported the party platform of an alliance with Britain, which caused a strained relationship with France. Washington's presidential successor and fellow Federalist, John Adams, during his term from 1796-1800 was on the verge of war with France because of this alliance. Washington's farewell address is and always will be inspiring and thought provoking. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
"Farewell Address to the People of the United States" -- Given at the end of Washington's second term, which thus set forth a precedent every president until Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed, Washington seemed to be giving advice to his fellow countrymen. He advocates a unified government, that citizens should always show patriotism, power in the people, and isolationism. He urges the nation to avoid miltiary establishment like the British imposed on the colonists and to avoid internal conflict. While reading Washington's speech, is it possible that Washington was a member of the English Country Party? Not necessarily a member, but more or less a supporter who believed power and liberty were in a constant battle against each other, and that liberty was more important than power. If Washington followed the principles of the English Country Party, then maybe the rest of the founding fathers as well believed in the same principles as they wrote the Constitution? Then if the Founding Fathers were supporters of the English Country Party, which believed that power of government takes away public liberty, then the Constitution was modeled according to English Country Party beliefs with the power of government resting in the hands of public liberty since the public controls the government, is it safe or correct to assume that perhaps the very first political party established in the United States was the English Country Party and not the Federalists/Antifederalists/Republicans? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
Washington’s farewell address seems very unrealistic when it comes to a country being able to stay out of foreign relations and political parties. Did he truly believe that his ideals could be met, or was he simply “putting it out there” for Americans to strive towards? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I think it's pretty cool that Washington gave advice at his farewell address, rather than focusing on what he'd done and such. His advice was pretty good, whether he followed it or not. He truly seemed to want the best for the country. --Gracie<br />
<br />
"Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all...In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate for others, should be excluded..." Obviously Washington wanted what was best for his country, and he gives good advice. But I find it interesting that he states that the nation should not be against other nations, or be particulary fond of them. It almost sounds like he has a fatherly tone and that he doesn't really trust any other nations, warning the United States to not be too passionate for other nations. -- Courtney Newcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Education for Young Women'''<br />
I found this article very interesting because education for women was still very uncommon. However, both Molly Wallace and Priscilla Mason both express their opinions very clearly about the difference between the education of men and women. In both speeches made in consecutive years, I found it interesting that both clearly stated that what men learned was quite useless even though it was thought to be prestigious. These women felt that even though they did not learn as much, the information they learned was more useful, valuable, and essential than that information that was taught to the men. It was also very interesting because I was also able to infer from these speeches that they thought they had more to offer intellectually than the men based on the knowledge that they had gained during their education. At this time however, wouldn't it have still been a problem for these to speak out so openly about their opinions of education? Quincey Garcia</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T05:00:51Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Blanchard and Manasses discuss Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930 */</p>
<hr />
<div>THE ONLINE READING IS LOCATED HERE: [http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/docs/MP-Reading.pdf Week 8 Reading]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kennedy's "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" ==<br />
<br />
In this week's reading of "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, the idea that struck me the deepest was the thought that the now extinct sensibility that existed during the first half of the twentieth century actually helped a minority people. Having unofficial social mores and a respect for others' privacy allowed for lesbians who were white to live productive lives as long as they lived according to same social standards that ruled the lives of heterosexual women. This custom appears to have created a type of equality that may or may not exist today. Given the fact that the majority of the things that many homosexual couples are fighting for today did not yet exist for heterosexual couples, it would seem as if during this point in time, lesbianism was treated as an extreme eccentricity that should be controlled out of respect for one's neighbors. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I did not find it as surprising that is was so possible for Julia Boyer Reinstein's family to accept her lesbianism. While I am sure that her mother and father would have preferred to have a son-in-law, that the father enjoyed not having to entertain potential male suitors and having someone who would cover up his extramaterial affairs should not be overlooked. In a certain sense, I think what made her lesbianism easier to accept than if Julia Boyer Reinstein had been a homosexual male was that the society in which she lived was patriarchal and thus the desires of the father won out over the desires of the mother, and her father really did not care whether she enjoyed a heterosexual marriage or not. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
So then does the tying of sexuality with politics and identity mischaracterize people and their politics, concerns, and histories? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "But we would never talk about it" I didn't feel surprised about any of it. Being a lesbian back then was not defined as it was today. It was common for women to confide in each other and sleep in the same bed and have an intimate relationship. However, a lot of people did not know what was really going on behind closed doors, which I feel is a reason why no one every talked about it. The only thing that did surprise me was that her parents were ok with it all. There is a passage that talks about how her mother would make a comment about how she wasn't with this one boy, but in the end her being a lesbian didn't bother her, she was actually very polite to Dorothy. In Julia's father's case, it didn't surprise me so much after there were comments made that he could have all of her attention. He didn't need to entertain possible son - in- laws, however I also feel like he used Julia because she was gay. By giving Julia his consent and accepting her it keep their relationship close, however he might of done this because it covered up all of his affairs. My question was did Julia ever see her father and her relationship this way, or was she just happy that her father accepted her? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
The second part that I thought was the most interesting was her encounter with Amelia Earhart. It shows how cautious girls were towards other girls. I feel that these women were so unsure about themselves that they really had to question others more. Especially since this was one of her earlier encounters, it shows that in the beginning Julia was very timid about her sexuality. Since she was shy about her self, she wasn't going to go out and put the moves on every girl, especially not Earhart. But as she gets older her "sense" gets stronger, through all the trips she took with her father. She could tell which woman was the "odd" one of the bunch, I also feel that over the years other women started to feel a little more comfortable with being gay and showing it a little more. Which made it easier for women like Julia to point out the "odd" girl. My only question was were there women like today who went through these phases of lesbians and then just turned straight and marry? Or was it because society was starting to see lesbians for what they were and women felt pressured to become straight live the way society wants them to? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Kennedy uses the case of Julia to discuss the discretion of lesbianism in the early 1900’s. There were, however, many other aspects to Julia’s identity than just her sexuality. This is pointed on page 415, when Kennedy states “she came into her womanhood as a lesbian, as a college student, as the daughter of a father who was prominent citizen and business owner, and as the daughter of a mother who was strongly independent yet part of an established small-town protestant family.” Given this, the discretion of Julia’s sexuality may have been because it would have been a trait that overshadowed the others; it may have become her only identifying factor in the public eye as opposed to just one of many. Could there have been any other traits during this time that people felt the need to cover-up, other than sexuality? And how true is this still today? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Lesbianism wasn’t something that could be discriminated against publicly; this is in contrast to other aspects of one’s identity such as gender or race, which could once have been discriminated against legally. Yet Julia still feared that if she was obvious about how she felt then she would not be able to receive all the benefits and privileges of her class. Which would be harder to deal with, discrimination by law or discrimination by society? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would be afraid that anything that was considered not "normal" would be discriminated against. Just because it wasn't something typically a reason to discriminate against someone doesn't mean that people wont. Most people don't like what they don't understand. --Kellye Sorber <br />
<br />
All I have to say is, wow. I know there are still a lot of problems with accepting lesbianism today, but to read that a father accepted it and used it to his advantage was incredibly. I feel that even lesbianism today is kept quite because most people seem not to always accept it, however not as much as the 1920s and 1930s. There are gay rights movements and things like ‘gay day’ at theme or amusement parks, which to me shouts “we accept all people of sexual preferences.” That could also just be a money marketing scam… However, I really did enjoy this piece by Elizabeth Kennedy because going through the public school system I had friends that I knew were lesbians, but we never talked about it, not even when they would have a break up with their girlfriend. If there was a break-up we would take the friend for ice-cream or something, but nothing was ever said about the situation. –Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "But We Would Never Talk About It." However, I was not at all surprised about the fact that these women did not talk about their sexual preferences and experiences with other women or their parents, mostly because I still have the impression that while during this time period it was becoming more acceptable for sex to be discusses it still wasn't really done. And since sex in general wasn't talked about, why would a varying preference be talked about? Also while I found it amazing that her mother and father supported her and were ok with her sexual choice, I was also disgusted by the fact the father would use that to his advantage so he could continue his extramarital affairs! I do have to wonder, was she really ok with covering for her dad in these instances, or did she have any resentment towards him for using her in this way and if her nonchalant attitude towards it was because it was simply how she dealt with those feelings?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Unequal Sisters, I found the quote "You don't know if someone is a lesbian unless you've slept with her" to be interesting. I'm not surprised that women who were lesbians didn't discuss their sexuality openly but why was it started that way? Besides religious aspects, where did the term lesbian or gay gain its perceived connotation? I feel like it was only more recently that males and females who were gay felt safe in taking pride of their sexuality. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought it was creepy reading Julia's story and how her father thought of her daughter as the "apple of his eye". It was weird to me that he subconsciously made a deal with her not to exploit her lesbian affairs as long as she kept quiet about his extramarital activities. Was this just one account or a more "normal" occurrence at the time? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought all the reading for this week were very interesting. I really like the "But We Never Talk about It" article by Elizabeth Kennedy. I thought the story about Julia meeting Amelia Earhart was fascinating. It is the first story we have about a famous woman who was a lesbian and managed to not let that knowledge affect her life or hinder her attempts at greatness. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I found the question that the author, Elizabeth Kennedy, posed at the beginning of the article was an interesting one: "Is discretion always oppressive?" (410) I was just beginning to read the article when I somehow got onto the topic of what I was reading with a friend of mine. I had said something about the fact that I found it interesting but not surprising that Julia Boyer Reinstein would "never talk about it" and enjoyed having her private life private. Said friend commented that I should think about "imposed silence" and the societal values that imposed it. That talk made me think that too many people view lesbianism through the lens of the liberation movement. The author herself admits to it (see footnote #6 in the article). The reason this article was so interesting is that it takes into account the time period... and doesn't judge Boyer Reinstein from a modern standpoint. The reason that she and so many others were able to live fulfilling and discrete lives as lesbians was because as was noted by Elsa Gidlow “it did seem that in those days civilized persons respected one another’s privacies” (422). Everyone was circumspect about their private lives, homo- or hetero-sexual. Discretion in this case is not always oppressive. But the question posed is a broader one... and not just limited to lesbianism in the 1930's. In a later discussion of the topic with my friend, we discussed the question, and decided that it depends completely on the what one is being discrete about. Topics like schizophrenia and sexual assault are generally kept quiet by those who have the mental disorder or those who were attacked, but what happens when one wants to talk about it? They have no one. That's one of the most punishing parts about sexual assault - never being able to talk about it. So discretion can be both oppressive and liberating. - Sarah H<br />
<br />
Julia's story seems so foreign in today's "open" society. Now that sexuality is openly discussed, sexual orientation seems to be a much bigger, public concern. Although Julia had to keep her affairs private, she did not have to "reveal" and openly discuss her sexuality publicly as many women today must do. The former seems a more comfortable situation. But I do wonder when Julia was with her lesbian friends if there was an "elephant in the room" that they wanted but feared to openly acknowledge? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Dr. Carlton C. Frederick on Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I pity the most definitely unsatisfied woman married to that Dr. Carlton C. Frederick! His unqualified theories on woman were as sexist as Freud's of that same time period (the grotesque double standard was very popular then)! This article compared to the survey's of Dr. Mosher were so starkly different, I wonder what kind of effect the controversy had over the general population-and more importantly over the general female population? His assertive views on Nymphomaniacs has actually made me question the sexism based around that "disorder"-I would be interested in further study of the history of Nymphomania as recognized by physicians and society. Also in consideration of mental disorders: this article is part of the great slew of material that prolonged the accepted myth that homosexuality is a mental illness well into the early 70s in American. I don't know how doctors could do it back then- to use unsubstantiated views as evidence for such sexist publications! ~~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie that Dr. Frederick was a wack job! Where on earth did he get his information from. It really makes you wonder how many doctors in those days actually did any kind of research or if they were simply stuck on a certain view of women and because they were a doctor they felt that gave them authority and validation to what their theory on the female and sex was.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie about the Dr. Frederick essay. My question is: Was Frederick saying that nymphomania in women, was when they acheived the same level of sexuality and deisre that men had? Or was it on some completely different level? Also I found it disturbing, and almost funny how he so easily bridged a gap between masturbation and pedophelia.----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I flat out laughed when I read the beginning of "The Manifestations of Nymphomania." What I thought was so interesting about this reading, besides the ideology that if women liked sex as much as men the world would be one giant brothel, was that this was documented at the turn of the century. I think it's a good example of the mentality some conservatives were trying to hold on to as the "new woman" burst onto the scene. I just didn't really understand his distinction between "insane" and the "not insane." Were the insane and mildly insane nymphomaniacs the ones that went into bars and started flirting with men, etc? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found Carlton C. Fredericks article amusing at the same time it was irritating. It was amusing to me because of the way he approached the subject yet irritating because of its sexism. He seemed to imply that only insane or mildly insane women would likely turn to Nymphomania. I also find it interesting that he said women turned to other women to achieve satisfaction, wouldn't it then follow the logical path of his thought that to rectify this husbands should focus on more than just their sexual pleasure?(I'm not saying I agree with his thought process). Also, is he saying that men can't have nymphomania and that its an aliment strictly suffered by women?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mosher Survey, 1892-1913 ==<br />
<br />
There were several parts of the reading off the wiki that fit in perfectly with the companionate marriage we discussed in class today. Most noticeably the second passage from extracts from the Mosher Survey, respondent 10 was qouted as "I think for man and woman married from love, it may be used temperately, as one of the highest manifestations of love." This passage exemplifies the break from the repressive victorian era ideals of marriage, that women should not enjoy sex, and that it should be used primarily for reproduction. Another example was the second letter to Sanger, the man was asking for details of contraception, not for (entirely) selfish reasons, he seemed genuinely concerned about his wife's welfare and happiness. ----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised after reading the "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" because I did not realize that it seemed that most women did not have knowledge of sexual physiology before marriage. I'm guessing most of the men knew though. I think the 'birds and the bees' was mostly explained by my teachers when I was in 4th or 5th grade, or around age 9 or 10. Times have changed considerably, but I wonder how many U.S. females are raised in such a way still that they do not know much about it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
So, as everyone knows, I hate the idea of using Lysol as a means of contraception. As a result, reading the one interview with Respondent 44 made me cringe. Bichloride? Really? I'm assuming they used the mercury compound since I saw another interviewee discuss it and I almost fell over. That stuff is dangerous so it astounded me that it had "no effect" as she stated. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people would go to prevent pregnancies in the early 20th century. It was interesting to read all of the interviews though and compare and contrast them. The differences were slight because the years were relatively close together, but the shifts in belief about the purposes of intercourse emphasized that shift from a "sex is for male pleasure and reproduction only" world to a "women can like it too" sort of atmosphere. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly, it is crazy what women will do to prevent pregnancy. How could you put yourself in danger just so you dont have children. I know that childbirth was considered not always safe but really, why would you do something even worse to yourself? I too was impressed by the change in the interviews, things have to progress. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly and Kellye. The bichloride bit scared me. I'm currently in taking chemistry... and mercury bichloride (aka Mercury(II) Chloride) is HIGHLY toxic. It's MSDS sheet reads: "Poison. May be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Long-term exposure, even at low levels, may lead to impaired memory, build-up of mercury in body organs, loss of appetite, loose teeth and other effects. Severe irritant." It's also dangerous to the environment. So I wonder why the interviewee said she had no side effects. I really wonder if ANYONE did any medical research as to the EFFECTS of any of the products they were pushing as contraceptives? Did anyone care about the health and safety of these women? - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the respondents from Mosher I was surprised to find out how many women really knew nothing about sex once they were married. I knew that it was somthing not talked about, but to be a women just married and not knowing what sex even was had to be scary and maybe even confusing to them. Did the husbands know though? What I also thought was interesting about their resoponses was that those who did try some kind of means to prevent pregnancy, when asked if their health was effected they all said no. The things they used didn't sound like very safe things, but what I've come to realize by these readings this week is that women seemed to be desperate for anything to have some kind of control over conception, but were the men just as desperate in hopes that something would emerge to prevent pregnancy once there were so many children already in the family too?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found the readings from the Wiki very interesting! I was slightly shocked at some of the details in the "Extracts from the Mosher survey: 1892-1913". Mostly I was surprised at how long some of these couples waited before they had sex after marrying! There was one woman who said that their first time having sex was 5 months after they were married! I found this surprising because most married couples are simply expected to do that on their wedding night. And like Kelly I was shocked at the items they used to attempt to control pregnancies and then claimed that they had no physical affect on them when it should have.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
The fact that so many of us are astounded at the information in the Mosher surveys is an indicator at how far we have come. In my recent interview with two 81 year old women, it revealed that the discussion of sex was never discussed between the mothers and daughters. One of the women became a nurse after high school and received information on the topic in her anatomy class.--LisaM <br />
<br />
<br />
I found "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" humorous. Most of these women did not know much about the female body and not anything about the male reproduction system. Most pregnancy were an accident with a couple of exceptions. The usual types of birth control were used with no noted side effects. I think all the women said that reproduction was the main reason for sexual intercourse while the last interview , held in 1913, said that sex was uplifting like music. The number of times per week/month these women had intercourse varied. Would they have told the truth? -Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In the document “Extracts form the Mosher Survey.” it didn’t surprise me to hear that most women didn’t know much about men physiology. Sex was not an open topic to talk about. Women then were taught to wait till marriage and that intercourse was only meant to please men and have children. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s ==<br />
<br />
After reading the online reading something that stuck out to me the most was the letters to Margaret Sanger. I found it surprising that men and women were actually staying away from their spouses because they don't want anymore children. Because birth control was not offered to women, and especially women who lived in rural areas, it was ruining marriages. In letter number 4 the wife was actually thinking about their financial stability knowing they can not have another child and all the husband wants is sex not really caring about the situation. This whole concept of the companion family caused higher expectations, however in these letters the women and or men mention that they love their spouse dearly but because they don't want to reproduce tears them apart. If there was such a big problem with divorce rates increasing and infidelity then why wasn't this taken into account? Is it because people are just to afraid to talk about sex? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
When reading the letters to Margaret Sanger about birth control I kind of asked the same question Amanda did on why wasn't it taken into account that divorce rates increasing was really possibly due to infidelity which was essentially caused by fear of having sex in result of having children. Therefore birth control would really possibly save marriage, however I don't think it is because people were afraid to talk about sex even though it wasn't talked about but, instead maybe what they really wanted was to be able to have sex freely without the worry of getting pregnant, and birth control would allow a married couple to have control over how many children they wanted. Maybe they thought, this thought was a scary or selfish thing to even think or want becasue for so long people just had children, but because the world was changing there was just no need for families with 7 to 10 children anymore.--Michelle M. <br />
<br />
The letters to Margaret Sanger about the need for birth control were extremely interesting. I thought it was strange how women assumed they would just magically know how to not have children once they were married. Also, I wondered if married couples not having sex so as to not have any more children led to affairs outside the marriage. Clearly, there was no birth control for any type of sexual relationship but I get the feeling that these people writing in thought that extramarital affairs couldn’t result in children. What did prostitutes do for birth control? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Cat had a great point. I read once that prostitutes would take a "potion" to prevent pregnancy. Basically the same method as other women.... Pessaries, maybe abortion. -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
On the topic of prostitutes and abortion, and not the reading, my mother was a nurse in one of the major hospitals in Houston, TX, and when she first started working there she got a call from a room asking for assistance. A woman needed help getting from the toilet back to her bed. My mom helped her back to the bed, and went to the bathroom and saw a fetus in the toilet. My mom freaked out. The other nurses explained to her that the woman had had an abortion, and that she routinely went to the hospital to have one, and that was the woman's form of birth control. They were also fairly certain she was a prostitute. Keep in mind that this was the early 1980's. <br />
<br />
To discuss the actual reading, the letters were depressing. I will admit to being slightly impressed by the man writing to ask about contraceptives for fear of his wifes health, but that's the only slightly uplifting part of the letters. All of these women are desperate for help, and it makes me rather sad. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The people who wrote these letters sound so desperate. They lived in a time where the companionate marriage seemed to burden the women with an emotional and economic dilemma; namely, the lack of intimate relations with their spouse could inhibit or destroy their marriage, but so could the economic and physical burdens that resulted from additional children. When I read these letters, I wondered how many women were pushed to self aborting because of no other remedy.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, Michelle and Cat. I found the letters to Margaret Sanger Morose. All the letters were from married men or women wanting to prevent conception. Societies views and laws regarding birth control was ruining relationships and marriages. I do feel compassion towards the men writing to Sanger about their wives health. Would this be a compassionate marriage? -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In “Letters to Margaret Sanger, Birth-Control Advocate,” I agree with the third letter from a mother of six children. She should be allowed to use birth control for a few reasons. Financially she cannot afford to have another child, she doesn’t have anymore time to take care of more children, and birth control will help save her marriage. Her husband would rather stay away from her to avoid having another child. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Like many people have commented before me, I found the letters to Margaret Sanger depressing but it was nice to see the caring nature of the man who wrote in concern for his wife's health. This seemed to me to be the best example of the concept of a companionate marriage. Thought this letter probably doesn't represent the majority, I feel like the debate about birth control is fought by women and we forget that men are involved. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Blanchard and Manasses discuss Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930 ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon and also saw many parallels between the discussion of the companionate family in class and also in society today. Blanchard and Manasses' discussion of courtship points out that men and women were able to "become intimately acquainted" before marriage and discuss openly and equally about their opinions of married life before they were married. The notion that men and women must be compatible personalities, working together as partners in all areas demonstrates the new ideal. Yet there are still hidden facets of Victorian ideals engrained into the companionate marriage. The "lurking fear that she may seem too passionate, and her husband may suspect what still seems to her dreadful secret, she cannot give herself up to free enjoyment of his love," still alludes to the idea that women are not supposed to enjoy sex and when they do there is something morally wrong with them. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I also saw a parallel between Blanchard and Manasses' discussion and society's ideals today. Sex education, and the lack thereof, is still a problem. Many schools still strictly follow an abstinence only program and students are left uneducated about where to go for family planning options. In many cases women still grow up experiencing "conditioned responses toward sex" in which parents have punished any form of sexual expression. The experiences of women described in this reading (anxiety, embarressment, guilt) caused by society's ideals still strongly exist. Their discussion was a liberal view and today this view would be considered conservative but how much have the ideals of women's sexuality changed from the early 20th century? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
The discussion of “modern marriage” was really interesting to me. I find it horrifying that ideals of companionship didn’t exist before this time. Even in this essay, there is a part where Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manassas question what a companion marriage may mean for the future once sexual desire fades. I just found it interesting that eve they are not true believers in companionship. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
The quote that Meredith refered to about a woman's "lurking fear that she may seem too passionate" seemed at the heart of this essay. The rigid ideals of the previous century remain and I would say they continue on until th 1960s and 1970s. But even today, women's sexuality is a discussion of idealized innocence versus sexual expression. Americans are still very conservative despite changes in social standards. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Malcom Bissell on birth control activism in PA, 1925 ==<br />
<br />
Malcom Bissell’s essay on birth control discusses how small group meetings in people’s home might be the most effect way of disseminating birth control information. I think this is very telling of society’s views at the time. Clearly, birth control was wanted and necessary, but there was such a social stigma and controversy over using it that people didn’t want to be publicly seen as seeking out information. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what Cat said, I was kind of impressed with the flow of communication that had been started by the time of this document. The one comment that really struck me was, "There are abundant signs that the public is ready to give its support to Birth Control." It shows how much has changed since the Victorian era we had spent so much time on but it is also kind of a loaded statement. It's pretty dangerous to make such a statement in a society that still clearly had such strong opposition to contraceptive methods which are apparent to us by all the various documents we've read for this week. Nonetheless, I'm impressed he had the audacity to make such a statement and enforce such a movement towards providing birth control to women (and their husbands of course). -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought the article "Breaking the Silence" by Yolanda Leyva was interesting. It was surprising to me that the Catholic Church was one place where the lesbian women could be themselves. I would have though that the church would have severely disapproved of such behavior. Did they just not know that by segregating the women they were encouraging this behavior or were the women just using the circumstances to their advantage? - Christine Wuebker</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments328--Week 8 Questions/Comments2008-03-13T04:55:08Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s */</p>
<hr />
<div>THE ONLINE READING IS LOCATED HERE: [http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/docs/MP-Reading.pdf Week 8 Reading]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Kennedy's "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" ==<br />
<br />
In this week's reading of "'But We Would Never Talk about it': The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933" by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, the idea that struck me the deepest was the thought that the now extinct sensibility that existed during the first half of the twentieth century actually helped a minority people. Having unofficial social mores and a respect for others' privacy allowed for lesbians who were white to live productive lives as long as they lived according to same social standards that ruled the lives of heterosexual women. This custom appears to have created a type of equality that may or may not exist today. Given the fact that the majority of the things that many homosexual couples are fighting for today did not yet exist for heterosexual couples, it would seem as if during this point in time, lesbianism was treated as an extreme eccentricity that should be controlled out of respect for one's neighbors. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I did not find it as surprising that is was so possible for Julia Boyer Reinstein's family to accept her lesbianism. While I am sure that her mother and father would have preferred to have a son-in-law, that the father enjoyed not having to entertain potential male suitors and having someone who would cover up his extramaterial affairs should not be overlooked. In a certain sense, I think what made her lesbianism easier to accept than if Julia Boyer Reinstein had been a homosexual male was that the society in which she lived was patriarchal and thus the desires of the father won out over the desires of the mother, and her father really did not care whether she enjoyed a heterosexual marriage or not. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
So then does the tying of sexuality with politics and identity mischaracterize people and their politics, concerns, and histories? --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
After reading "But we would never talk about it" I didn't feel surprised about any of it. Being a lesbian back then was not defined as it was today. It was common for women to confide in each other and sleep in the same bed and have an intimate relationship. However, a lot of people did not know what was really going on behind closed doors, which I feel is a reason why no one every talked about it. The only thing that did surprise me was that her parents were ok with it all. There is a passage that talks about how her mother would make a comment about how she wasn't with this one boy, but in the end her being a lesbian didn't bother her, she was actually very polite to Dorothy. In Julia's father's case, it didn't surprise me so much after there were comments made that he could have all of her attention. He didn't need to entertain possible son - in- laws, however I also feel like he used Julia because she was gay. By giving Julia his consent and accepting her it keep their relationship close, however he might of done this because it covered up all of his affairs. My question was did Julia ever see her father and her relationship this way, or was she just happy that her father accepted her? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
The second part that I thought was the most interesting was her encounter with Amelia Earhart. It shows how cautious girls were towards other girls. I feel that these women were so unsure about themselves that they really had to question others more. Especially since this was one of her earlier encounters, it shows that in the beginning Julia was very timid about her sexuality. Since she was shy about her self, she wasn't going to go out and put the moves on every girl, especially not Earhart. But as she gets older her "sense" gets stronger, through all the trips she took with her father. She could tell which woman was the "odd" one of the bunch, I also feel that over the years other women started to feel a little more comfortable with being gay and showing it a little more. Which made it easier for women like Julia to point out the "odd" girl. My only question was were there women like today who went through these phases of lesbians and then just turned straight and marry? Or was it because society was starting to see lesbians for what they were and women felt pressured to become straight live the way society wants them to? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
Kennedy uses the case of Julia to discuss the discretion of lesbianism in the early 1900’s. There were, however, many other aspects to Julia’s identity than just her sexuality. This is pointed on page 415, when Kennedy states “she came into her womanhood as a lesbian, as a college student, as the daughter of a father who was prominent citizen and business owner, and as the daughter of a mother who was strongly independent yet part of an established small-town protestant family.” Given this, the discretion of Julia’s sexuality may have been because it would have been a trait that overshadowed the others; it may have become her only identifying factor in the public eye as opposed to just one of many. Could there have been any other traits during this time that people felt the need to cover-up, other than sexuality? And how true is this still today? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
Lesbianism wasn’t something that could be discriminated against publicly; this is in contrast to other aspects of one’s identity such as gender or race, which could once have been discriminated against legally. Yet Julia still feared that if she was obvious about how she felt then she would not be able to receive all the benefits and privileges of her class. Which would be harder to deal with, discrimination by law or discrimination by society? --Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I would be afraid that anything that was considered not "normal" would be discriminated against. Just because it wasn't something typically a reason to discriminate against someone doesn't mean that people wont. Most people don't like what they don't understand. --Kellye Sorber <br />
<br />
All I have to say is, wow. I know there are still a lot of problems with accepting lesbianism today, but to read that a father accepted it and used it to his advantage was incredibly. I feel that even lesbianism today is kept quite because most people seem not to always accept it, however not as much as the 1920s and 1930s. There are gay rights movements and things like ‘gay day’ at theme or amusement parks, which to me shouts “we accept all people of sexual preferences.” That could also just be a money marketing scam… However, I really did enjoy this piece by Elizabeth Kennedy because going through the public school system I had friends that I knew were lesbians, but we never talked about it, not even when they would have a break up with their girlfriend. If there was a break-up we would take the friend for ice-cream or something, but nothing was ever said about the situation. –Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading "But We Would Never Talk About It." However, I was not at all surprised about the fact that these women did not talk about their sexual preferences and experiences with other women or their parents, mostly because I still have the impression that while during this time period it was becoming more acceptable for sex to be discusses it still wasn't really done. And since sex in general wasn't talked about, why would a varying preference be talked about? Also while I found it amazing that her mother and father supported her and were ok with her sexual choice, I was also disgusted by the fact the father would use that to his advantage so he could continue his extramarital affairs! I do have to wonder, was she really ok with covering for her dad in these instances, or did she have any resentment towards him for using her in this way and if her nonchalant attitude towards it was because it was simply how she dealt with those feelings?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
In Unequal Sisters, I found the quote "You don't know if someone is a lesbian unless you've slept with her" to be interesting. I'm not surprised that women who were lesbians didn't discuss their sexuality openly but why was it started that way? Besides religious aspects, where did the term lesbian or gay gain its perceived connotation? I feel like it was only more recently that males and females who were gay felt safe in taking pride of their sexuality. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought it was creepy reading Julia's story and how her father thought of her daughter as the "apple of his eye". It was weird to me that he subconsciously made a deal with her not to exploit her lesbian affairs as long as she kept quiet about his extramarital activities. Was this just one account or a more "normal" occurrence at the time? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought all the reading for this week were very interesting. I really like the "But We Never Talk about It" article by Elizabeth Kennedy. I thought the story about Julia meeting Amelia Earhart was fascinating. It is the first story we have about a famous woman who was a lesbian and managed to not let that knowledge affect her life or hinder her attempts at greatness. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I found the question that the author, Elizabeth Kennedy, posed at the beginning of the article was an interesting one: "Is discretion always oppressive?" (410) I was just beginning to read the article when I somehow got onto the topic of what I was reading with a friend of mine. I had said something about the fact that I found it interesting but not surprising that Julia Boyer Reinstein would "never talk about it" and enjoyed having her private life private. Said friend commented that I should think about "imposed silence" and the societal values that imposed it. That talk made me think that too many people view lesbianism through the lens of the liberation movement. The author herself admits to it (see footnote #6 in the article). The reason this article was so interesting is that it takes into account the time period... and doesn't judge Boyer Reinstein from a modern standpoint. The reason that she and so many others were able to live fulfilling and discrete lives as lesbians was because as was noted by Elsa Gidlow “it did seem that in those days civilized persons respected one another’s privacies” (422). Everyone was circumspect about their private lives, homo- or hetero-sexual. Discretion in this case is not always oppressive. But the question posed is a broader one... and not just limited to lesbianism in the 1930's. In a later discussion of the topic with my friend, we discussed the question, and decided that it depends completely on the what one is being discrete about. Topics like schizophrenia and sexual assault are generally kept quiet by those who have the mental disorder or those who were attacked, but what happens when one wants to talk about it? They have no one. That's one of the most punishing parts about sexual assault - never being able to talk about it. So discretion can be both oppressive and liberating. - Sarah H<br />
<br />
Julia's story seems so foreign in today's "open" society. Now that sexuality is openly discussed, sexual orientation seems to be a much bigger, public concern. Although Julia had to keep her affairs private, she did not have to "reveal" and openly discuss her sexuality publicly as many women today must do. The former seems a more comfortable situation. But I do wonder when Julia was with her lesbian friends if there was an "elephant in the room" that they wanted but feared to openly acknowledge? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
== Dr. Carlton C. Frederick on Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I pity the most definitely unsatisfied woman married to that Dr. Carlton C. Frederick! His unqualified theories on woman were as sexist as Freud's of that same time period (the grotesque double standard was very popular then)! This article compared to the survey's of Dr. Mosher were so starkly different, I wonder what kind of effect the controversy had over the general population-and more importantly over the general female population? His assertive views on Nymphomaniacs has actually made me question the sexism based around that "disorder"-I would be interested in further study of the history of Nymphomania as recognized by physicians and society. Also in consideration of mental disorders: this article is part of the great slew of material that prolonged the accepted myth that homosexuality is a mental illness well into the early 70s in American. I don't know how doctors could do it back then- to use unsubstantiated views as evidence for such sexist publications! ~~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie that Dr. Frederick was a wack job! Where on earth did he get his information from. It really makes you wonder how many doctors in those days actually did any kind of research or if they were simply stuck on a certain view of women and because they were a doctor they felt that gave them authority and validation to what their theory on the female and sex was.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Jackie about the Dr. Frederick essay. My question is: Was Frederick saying that nymphomania in women, was when they acheived the same level of sexuality and deisre that men had? Or was it on some completely different level? Also I found it disturbing, and almost funny how he so easily bridged a gap between masturbation and pedophelia.----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I flat out laughed when I read the beginning of "The Manifestations of Nymphomania." What I thought was so interesting about this reading, besides the ideology that if women liked sex as much as men the world would be one giant brothel, was that this was documented at the turn of the century. I think it's a good example of the mentality some conservatives were trying to hold on to as the "new woman" burst onto the scene. I just didn't really understand his distinction between "insane" and the "not insane." Were the insane and mildly insane nymphomaniacs the ones that went into bars and started flirting with men, etc? -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I found Carlton C. Fredericks article amusing at the same time it was irritating. It was amusing to me because of the way he approached the subject yet irritating because of its sexism. He seemed to imply that only insane or mildly insane women would likely turn to Nymphomania. I also find it interesting that he said women turned to other women to achieve satisfaction, wouldn't it then follow the logical path of his thought that to rectify this husbands should focus on more than just their sexual pleasure?(I'm not saying I agree with his thought process). Also, is he saying that men can't have nymphomania and that its an aliment strictly suffered by women?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mosher Survey, 1892-1913 ==<br />
<br />
There were several parts of the reading off the wiki that fit in perfectly with the companionate marriage we discussed in class today. Most noticeably the second passage from extracts from the Mosher Survey, respondent 10 was qouted as "I think for man and woman married from love, it may be used temperately, as one of the highest manifestations of love." This passage exemplifies the break from the repressive victorian era ideals of marriage, that women should not enjoy sex, and that it should be used primarily for reproduction. Another example was the second letter to Sanger, the man was asking for details of contraception, not for (entirely) selfish reasons, he seemed genuinely concerned about his wife's welfare and happiness. ----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised after reading the "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" because I did not realize that it seemed that most women did not have knowledge of sexual physiology before marriage. I'm guessing most of the men knew though. I think the 'birds and the bees' was mostly explained by my teachers when I was in 4th or 5th grade, or around age 9 or 10. Times have changed considerably, but I wonder how many U.S. females are raised in such a way still that they do not know much about it. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
So, as everyone knows, I hate the idea of using Lysol as a means of contraception. As a result, reading the one interview with Respondent 44 made me cringe. Bichloride? Really? I'm assuming they used the mercury compound since I saw another interviewee discuss it and I almost fell over. That stuff is dangerous so it astounded me that it had "no effect" as she stated. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people would go to prevent pregnancies in the early 20th century. It was interesting to read all of the interviews though and compare and contrast them. The differences were slight because the years were relatively close together, but the shifts in belief about the purposes of intercourse emphasized that shift from a "sex is for male pleasure and reproduction only" world to a "women can like it too" sort of atmosphere. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly, it is crazy what women will do to prevent pregnancy. How could you put yourself in danger just so you dont have children. I know that childbirth was considered not always safe but really, why would you do something even worse to yourself? I too was impressed by the change in the interviews, things have to progress. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with both Kelly and Kellye. The bichloride bit scared me. I'm currently in taking chemistry... and mercury bichloride (aka Mercury(II) Chloride) is HIGHLY toxic. It's MSDS sheet reads: "Poison. May be fatal if inhaled, swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Long-term exposure, even at low levels, may lead to impaired memory, build-up of mercury in body organs, loss of appetite, loose teeth and other effects. Severe irritant." It's also dangerous to the environment. So I wonder why the interviewee said she had no side effects. I really wonder if ANYONE did any medical research as to the EFFECTS of any of the products they were pushing as contraceptives? Did anyone care about the health and safety of these women? - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading the respondents from Mosher I was surprised to find out how many women really knew nothing about sex once they were married. I knew that it was somthing not talked about, but to be a women just married and not knowing what sex even was had to be scary and maybe even confusing to them. Did the husbands know though? What I also thought was interesting about their resoponses was that those who did try some kind of means to prevent pregnancy, when asked if their health was effected they all said no. The things they used didn't sound like very safe things, but what I've come to realize by these readings this week is that women seemed to be desperate for anything to have some kind of control over conception, but were the men just as desperate in hopes that something would emerge to prevent pregnancy once there were so many children already in the family too?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also found the readings from the Wiki very interesting! I was slightly shocked at some of the details in the "Extracts from the Mosher survey: 1892-1913". Mostly I was surprised at how long some of these couples waited before they had sex after marrying! There was one woman who said that their first time having sex was 5 months after they were married! I found this surprising because most married couples are simply expected to do that on their wedding night. And like Kelly I was shocked at the items they used to attempt to control pregnancies and then claimed that they had no physical affect on them when it should have.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
The fact that so many of us are astounded at the information in the Mosher surveys is an indicator at how far we have come. In my recent interview with two 81 year old women, it revealed that the discussion of sex was never discussed between the mothers and daughters. One of the women became a nurse after high school and received information on the topic in her anatomy class.--LisaM <br />
<br />
<br />
I found "Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913" humorous. Most of these women did not know much about the female body and not anything about the male reproduction system. Most pregnancy were an accident with a couple of exceptions. The usual types of birth control were used with no noted side effects. I think all the women said that reproduction was the main reason for sexual intercourse while the last interview , held in 1913, said that sex was uplifting like music. The number of times per week/month these women had intercourse varied. Would they have told the truth? -Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In the document “Extracts form the Mosher Survey.” it didn’t surprise me to hear that most women didn’t know much about men physiology. Sex was not an open topic to talk about. Women then were taught to wait till marriage and that intercourse was only meant to please men and have children. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== Letters to Margaret Sanger, 1920s ==<br />
<br />
After reading the online reading something that stuck out to me the most was the letters to Margaret Sanger. I found it surprising that men and women were actually staying away from their spouses because they don't want anymore children. Because birth control was not offered to women, and especially women who lived in rural areas, it was ruining marriages. In letter number 4 the wife was actually thinking about their financial stability knowing they can not have another child and all the husband wants is sex not really caring about the situation. This whole concept of the companion family caused higher expectations, however in these letters the women and or men mention that they love their spouse dearly but because they don't want to reproduce tears them apart. If there was such a big problem with divorce rates increasing and infidelity then why wasn't this taken into account? Is it because people are just to afraid to talk about sex? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
When reading the letters to Margaret Sanger about birth control I kind of asked the same question Amanda did on why wasn't it taken into account that divorce rates increasing was really possibly due to infidelity which was essentially caused by fear of having sex in result of having children. Therefore birth control would really possibly save marriage, however I don't think it is because people were afraid to talk about sex even though it wasn't talked about but, instead maybe what they really wanted was to be able to have sex freely without the worry of getting pregnant, and birth control would allow a married couple to have control over how many children they wanted. Maybe they thought, this thought was a scary or selfish thing to even think or want becasue for so long people just had children, but because the world was changing there was just no need for families with 7 to 10 children anymore.--Michelle M. <br />
<br />
The letters to Margaret Sanger about the need for birth control were extremely interesting. I thought it was strange how women assumed they would just magically know how to not have children once they were married. Also, I wondered if married couples not having sex so as to not have any more children led to affairs outside the marriage. Clearly, there was no birth control for any type of sexual relationship but I get the feeling that these people writing in thought that extramarital affairs couldn’t result in children. What did prostitutes do for birth control? – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Cat had a great point. I read once that prostitutes would take a "potion" to prevent pregnancy. Basically the same method as other women.... Pessaries, maybe abortion. -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
On the topic of prostitutes and abortion, and not the reading, my mother was a nurse in one of the major hospitals in Houston, TX, and when she first started working there she got a call from a room asking for assistance. A woman needed help getting from the toilet back to her bed. My mom helped her back to the bed, and went to the bathroom and saw a fetus in the toilet. My mom freaked out. The other nurses explained to her that the woman had had an abortion, and that she routinely went to the hospital to have one, and that was the woman's form of birth control. They were also fairly certain she was a prostitute. Keep in mind that this was the early 1980's. <br />
<br />
To discuss the actual reading, the letters were depressing. I will admit to being slightly impressed by the man writing to ask about contraceptives for fear of his wifes health, but that's the only slightly uplifting part of the letters. All of these women are desperate for help, and it makes me rather sad. - Sarah H.<br />
<br />
The people who wrote these letters sound so desperate. They lived in a time where the companionate marriage seemed to burden the women with an emotional and economic dilemma; namely, the lack of intimate relations with their spouse could inhibit or destroy their marriage, but so could the economic and physical burdens that resulted from additional children. When I read these letters, I wondered how many women were pushed to self aborting because of no other remedy.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, Michelle and Cat. I found the letters to Margaret Sanger Morose. All the letters were from married men or women wanting to prevent conception. Societies views and laws regarding birth control was ruining relationships and marriages. I do feel compassion towards the men writing to Sanger about their wives health. Would this be a compassionate marriage? -- Nikole Wellman<br />
<br />
In “Letters to Margaret Sanger, Birth-Control Advocate,” I agree with the third letter from a mother of six children. She should be allowed to use birth control for a few reasons. Financially she cannot afford to have another child, she doesn’t have anymore time to take care of more children, and birth control will help save her marriage. Her husband would rather stay away from her to avoid having another child. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Like many people have commented before me, I found the letters to Margaret Sanger depressing but it was nice to see the caring nature of the man who wrote in concern for his wife's health. This seemed to me to be the best example of the concept of a companionate marriage. Thought this letter probably doesn't represent the majority, I feel like the debate about birth control is fought by women and we forget that men are involved. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Blanchard and Manasses discuss Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930 ==<br />
<br />
I agree with Landon and also saw many parallels between the discussion of the companionate family in class and also in society today. Blanchard and Manasses' discussion of courtship points out that men and women were able to "become intimately acquainted" before marriage and discuss openly and equally about their opinions of married life before they were married. The notion that men and women must be compatible personalities, working together as partners in all areas demonstrates the new ideal. Yet there are still hidden facets of Victorian ideals engrained into the companionate marriage. The "lurking fear that she may seem too passionate, and her husband may suspect what still seems to her dreadful secret, she cannot give herself up to free enjoyment of his love," still alludes to the idea that women are not supposed to enjoy sex and when they do there is something morally wrong with them. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
I also saw a parallel between Blanchard and Manasses' discussion and society's ideals today. Sex education, and the lack thereof, is still a problem. Many schools still strictly follow an abstinence only program and students are left uneducated about where to go for family planning options. In many cases women still grow up experiencing "conditioned responses toward sex" in which parents have punished any form of sexual expression. The experiences of women described in this reading (anxiety, embarressment, guilt) caused by society's ideals still strongly exist. Their discussion was a liberal view and today this view would be considered conservative but how much have the ideals of women's sexuality changed from the early 20th century? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
The discussion of “modern marriage” was really interesting to me. I find it horrifying that ideals of companionship didn’t exist before this time. Even in this essay, there is a part where Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manassas question what a companion marriage may mean for the future once sexual desire fades. I just found it interesting that eve they are not true believers in companionship. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Malcom Bissell on birth control activism in PA, 1925 ==<br />
<br />
Malcom Bissell’s essay on birth control discusses how small group meetings in people’s home might be the most effect way of disseminating birth control information. I think this is very telling of society’s views at the time. Clearly, birth control was wanted and necessary, but there was such a social stigma and controversy over using it that people didn’t want to be publicly seen as seeking out information. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Kind of going off of what Cat said, I was kind of impressed with the flow of communication that had been started by the time of this document. The one comment that really struck me was, "There are abundant signs that the public is ready to give its support to Birth Control." It shows how much has changed since the Victorian era we had spent so much time on but it is also kind of a loaded statement. It's pretty dangerous to make such a statement in a society that still clearly had such strong opposition to contraceptive methods which are apparent to us by all the various documents we've read for this week. Nonetheless, I'm impressed he had the audacity to make such a statement and enforce such a movement towards providing birth control to women (and their husbands of course). -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought the article "Breaking the Silence" by Yolanda Leyva was interesting. It was surprising to me that the Catholic Church was one place where the lesbian women could be themselves. I would have though that the church would have severely disapproved of such behavior. Did they just not know that by segregating the women they were encouraging this behavior or were the women just using the circumstances to their advantage? - Christine Wuebker</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments328--Week 7 Questions/Comments2008-02-26T03:08:39Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Doris Stevens [pro] and Dr. Alice Hamilton [anti] debate the ERA, 1924 in the Forum. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mothers’ Letters to the Children’s Bureau, 1915-1932 [1921, 1925, 1932] ==<br />
<br />
"Anxious Mothers write the Children’s Bureau" deals with the health problems related to women and infants. People concerned wrote to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, which was formed until 1912. Before this, and even after this, was there anything for people to turn to on more of a local level? In addition, the first letter points out that the doctor was not available while the woman was giving birth, and the last letter points out the deficiencies in the profession. Was it more common or more reliable to see a midwife during this time? <br />
--Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the readings for this week. I thought it was interesting to read all the letters from the mothers to the Children's Bureau. The horror that one mother went throught just because she had a doctor who was not fully qualified and her desire for some sort of governmental check on all doctors to prevent such a terrible experience from happening again. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine about the letters to the Children's Bureau. They were all so interesting, the one about the mother who was worried about marking her baby was my favorite. Even though you hear of all the myths today that women worry about it was strange to hear this one. I have heard where craving certain food can help determine the sex of the baby but I had never heard that not eating a food that you are craving and then touching your face would mark the baby in someway. Where did these myths start? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I am in the same boat as Christine and Kellye, I really enjoyed the reading from the Children's Bureau. The talk of malpractice and myths was rather interesting, just what women had to go through with pregnancy and to get a doctor who isn't all that great with child birth. Also the myths that were there were just amazing, like the one Kelley mentioned where a not eating the food your longing for will mark or harm the child in some way. How do these myths start anyways? and why do women believe them? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In "Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau" I was shocked about how women would already have children but are still asking for pamphlets.I can understand they want the newest information, but Mrs. W.M. has three healthy boys, and is due to have another child. However she wants to know about caring for your baby. I found it interesting that these women were giving birth w/o a Dr. present, and then in the second letter, the Dr. is a quack. The second letter brought up a vaild point that these children are everyones futures. What I don't understand is then why are there not good Doctors and why women that live 8 miles away, why don't they try to take residence somewhere closer to them?-- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed reading the letters in "Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau." I thought that it was really interesting that these women seemed to be fairly pro-active in seeking advice on child-rearing and health concerns for their children. It was also pretty amusing reading about the woman afraid that not giving in to her cravings would leave marks on her cravings. I wonder what the response would to that question in context with the time period. I also wonder how much things have changed since then. I know that we have a lot of medical advances, but I also hear of a lot of old wives tales surrounding childbirth. Also, I come from a fairly rural area and I can see how not living close to a good doctor could still be a problem in some areas. And to respond to Amanda's question about why they didn't move closer to a doctor, I think that it would depend on a lot of factors. Particularly, if the family lives in a rural area on a farm or something, it might be difficult to move the family. That's just one example that I could think of, and I'm sure that there are a dozen more. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, Harper’s piece on “Generational Conflicts” – 1927 ==<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting to look at the women’s movement and how it evolved in different generations. Bromely begins by looking at the term “feminism” and how some people thought that this meant a young woman who had a job and who is no longer “old fashioned.” She looks at generational gaps between women in their twenties and women in their forties. If you were to make this breakdown today, how would women’s opinions on feminism differ? –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
<br />
I found "Generational Conflicts" extremely interesting because it seemed like many of the reasons that the women of the 1920s didn't want to be associated with the term 'feminist' are the same reasons that many people today don't want to be. These reasons include the desire to not be seen as man haters, the idea that they wouldn't live for only her husband or her job but rather would balance the two arenas, and had a desire to still wear feminine clothes which the older generation who called themselves feminists did not want to do.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
The Feminists--New Style of "Generational Conflicts" by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley seemed to be considerably naive. Was it really possible for a women to have a successful career during the 1920's and 1930's that could provide economic freedom? Was it as easy as these new feminists presented it to be?---Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
For the first time in this class I saw a glimpse of what I would consider the modern woman. In Dorothy Bromley's writing she describes the 3rd generation feminists and how they didn't hate men, how they were concerned with being fashionable, and how they were more concerend with economic independence than with reform. Before this reading all the women we have studied or read about either seemed to submissive to resemble any females I consider to be contemporary, or they were far more radical and militant than the average woman in America today. -----Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The other article I really like was "Feminist-New Style" by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley. It is the first time we see the formation of a modern woman. I also thought her description of the different generations of women was interesting. I was surprised she didn't talk about flappers. Today they are the most recognized women of the 1920s. I would have thought she would have at least mentioned them in her article. -- Christine Wuebker<br />
<br />
As much as I love being able to see a correlation between the 3rd Generation girls in "Feminist - New Style" and the modern American woman, it bothers me how unappreciative those girls seemed to be about all that had been accomplished, especially with the 2nd generation. True, feminist had a bit of a negative connotation because of how radical most of the suffragists were and it still has that "man-hating" connotation today, but what those women accomplished took a heck of a lot of work and energy. It just makes me wonder, are women today just as unappreciative of what other women had to suffer and fight for to give us the luxuries we have today? I certainly hope not. I do, however, like the last line, "If this be treason gentlemen, make the most of it." I did like this article a lot, and I like how Dorothe Dunbar Bromley emphasized how women should take control of their lives. But it just kind of bugged me how much she ragged on the 1st and 2nd generation women. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I was also very interested in reading teh "Generational Conflicts" by Dorothy Bromley. I found myself agreeing with alot that she says. I think that the feminists of the 1970's had the same kind of reputation of being antagonizers of men or as being man haters like the feminist-new style of the 20's thought the older feminists were. I remember growing up in the 70's and being adamant that I did not want to be known as a feminist when I grew up! I still hate that term because of the negative image I have from the Femi-nazis of the 70's but I guess my beliefs are very much "feminist". How did the feminist-new style turn into the femi-nazis of the 70's? Is it just a normal "cycle" of generations and the old "history repeats itself" argument or did something specific happen to cause the feminist to revert to the more militant end of the spectrum again?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
In Dorothy Bromley's essay she talks about the new modern women, and how they are an individual and independent. However she says, "And in this era of simplified housekeeping they see their oportunity.." (128) What does she mean by simplyfied housekeeping? Does she mean simplyfied because of new technology in cleaning appliances and products or something else? Also with this new oportunity of free time women are going to do something they enjoy, so what do they do in their new free time?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Women of the KKK, the Klan Kreed, Constitution, 1927 ==<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about the KKK. I had no idea in 1925 there were between 3 and 4 million American members involved. Also to read there were 500,000 women in a a "Women of the KKK" scares me. What drew all these individuals into this organization? Why so many women in 1925 and fewer in the later years? -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
Like Rose I found the article "Women of the Ku Klux Klan" interesting. While I was not that surprised on how many women were involved in it, especially seeing how much dislike the Southern states had towards blacks, and I remembered learning that Jews were becoming to be targets of the KKK I didn't remember that the Catholics were also targets. Although I didn't remember this, seeing how the majority, if not all of the members, were white protestants it does kind of make sense. Though what I found most interesting was the fact that section 2 of the Constitution of and laws of the WKKK stated that the group would be military in character, and I would have thought these women would want to avoid that categorization since it was not very lady-like.- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
The "Women of the Ku Klux Klan" document was really interesting. I was very surprised with the detailed constitution of the organization. Even though this was one way for women to become involved in politics it impressed me to the extent that the constitution went. It included the organization's objectives & purposes, membership and offenses & penalties. The type of offenses listed really surprised me, it never would have occurred to me to list "disrespect of virtuous womanhood." I would have thought that that offense would have been a given, but at the same time it is left up to individual interpretation of what would be considered disrespect. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I knew that there was a Women of the KKK, but I did not have any type of understanding of how many members and their Kreed. I found just the in depth of the Kreed amazing. It covered membership, objections, offenses and punishments. I found it interesting that there was a donation of $10 required... unless your husband was in the original KKK. Does the WKKK or the KKK still exist today? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
http://www.kkk.bz/ Oh yes, they're still here. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Something that I found rather comical when reading the intro to the WKKK was that they made a point to say one perk of the WKKK was every member in good standing got a free white robe and helmet. The fact that, that is the perk that is listed is ridiculous, I can imagine a women being like "I don't know all of what we stand for but we get a free outfit." Also what I really liked was how this horrible organization was seen as, by the women involved, "a splendid opportunity for friendship and solidarity .... Just a celebration... a way of growing up." This just baffles me because these women are part of an horrible organization almost as an excuse to make friends and have fun and celebrate growing up. I know it was accepted during the time period but are these women that naive and ridiculous? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I was shocked as well when I read about the WKKK. It just amazes me that more and more people were getting better educations but still people fell back on the "I am better than you" mentality. It amazes me that in their kreed they refer to having good morals and reputations and how patriotic they thought they were. I don't get how "White Supremecy" equals patriotism especially considering some of the things that the KKK would do. I know that my grandparents grew up in the 30's and they never supported these groups because my grandma always said violence against anyone was wrong but they had the same mentality towards different religions and blacks as these racial groups did. How did they reconcile the being a good Christian and believing in Jesus Christ like their Kreed says but then treat others the way they did?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
The WKKK article was very interesting because I had no idea that there was a KKK for women alone. I knew that the ones who had husbands in the KKK supported them, but that they actually had their own group, wow. Under the Constitution and Laws part of the article it says the "Order shall ever be military in character..." (136) How militaristic and ritualistic were they? Did they often commit violent act againt those they oppesed like the usual burning of a cross or throwing bricks through peoples windows?--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt, 1920, to League of Women Voters ==<br />
<br />
In "New Voters" by Carrie Chapman Catt, I found it notable that Catt thought of political change as only possible through political parties. This view differs from, what I guess is a more idealistic, view that the parties can be affected by grass roots movements. I guess her view of politics must have been shaped by her experiences fighting for women's suffrage. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I really like Carrie Chapman Catt's piece, "New Voters." She made an excellent point that now that women had the right to vote, they needed to do something with it. Since they were now seen on an "equal" platform with men when it came to casting votes, why not move yourself up higher in the political realm? That had been one of my questions actually, what were women going to fight for now that they had the right to vote? And was there something to fight for? Well, obviously, in Carrie Chapman Catt's opinion there was. It just makes me wonder if they would have been more successful had Catt been able to be a bigger part of this "new movement." She made the comment, "Younger and fresher women must do that work, and because I cannot advise and cannot follow, I only point to the fact that the battle is there..." and I just feel that with all she did for the suffrage movement, this next battle would have been fought better with her at the forefront. And, just for kicks, I liked the comment, "Women must not be content until they are as independent within the party as men are, which isn't saying much." She's so funny. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
"If you really want women's vote to count, make your way there."(p.122) This inspiring phrase from Carrie Chapman Catt's speech was the crux of the newly ratified 19th amendment. Now that women had the vote, how were they going to use it? She tells them to go out and get involved. It reminds me of all the campaigns to get out the vote that we have today. Catt understands that just having the power to vote is not enough; the real power lies in how it's used. I also found it interesting that she wants them to get involved in political parties in order to make the most impact. It almost seems like going backwards becaue now they're back to working within the male controlled sphere. It goes back to contradicting the narrow-minded male perception that women would all vote the same on issues. -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Doris Stevens [pro] and Dr. Alice Hamilton [anti] debate the ERA, 1924 in the Forum. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the debate about an Equal Rights Amendment to be fairly interesting. Of the two debates, I, with my modern understanding of things, believe that the argument in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment was a way to achieve gender equality. Having to wait for equality and legislate for women separately seems to play into gender stereotypes instead of defusing them which should ultimately be the purpose of whatever course of action that should be undertaken. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
"One of the most divisive issues for political women in the immediate post-suffrage years was the Equal Rights Amendment..." One argument focuses on equality in control of children, property, earnings, etc., and the other places emphasis on equality within the workplace. When you look at each woman, you can see a relationship with their life experience and their opinion on ERA. Doris Stevens, who argued for equality of children, property and earnings, was a teacher and social worker before becoming a member of NAWSA. Alice Hamilton was a physician concerned with worker health issues. If the opposing female groups could have negotiated and addressed women's rights in unison, do you think women's suffrage and equality could have been realized sooner?--LisaM<br />
<br />
I also found the debate very interesting as well as a challenging topic to side one way on. In a perfect world I would side with Stevens and the National Women's Party in terms of equality for both sexes. Although at that point in history it is easy to see how many women wouldn't want to be held to those standards in the work place. I think that Hamilton's arguement was best made when she looked to Holland. Instead of "taking privilege away from the women" (126) the privileges were given to the men. The debate brings up a very important point: where is the line that separates women and men and how do you draw that line while maintaining equality? -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
In Doris Stevens essay, she makes the point of realization that just because women have the right to vote now, does not mean that they will have eaqual rights still in other things. This is only the first step, because women are still seen as lesser than men. Did men or women or both think that now that women have the right to vote that it will make them happy and go away? Because equal voting did not solve the problem of equal rights all around.--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting reading and comparing the arguments presented in Doris Stevens' and Alice Hamilton's essays. What I found particularly interesting was that each group seemed to have the best interests of women at their core. Stevens was promoting the equality of women and men, and Hamilton promoted protection of women. However, I think that the closing statement in Hamilton's essay demonstrates how women as well as men needed a lot of convincing to promote the idea that they are equals. She says, "I must, as a practical person, familiar with the great, inarticulate body of working women, reiterate my belief that they are largely helpless, that they ahve very special needs which unaided they cannot attain, and that it would be a crime for the country to pass legislation which would not only make it impossible to better their lot in the near future but would even deprive them of hte small measure of protection they now enjoy." (p.126). It's also interesting that she thinks that passing an equal rights legislation would make it impossible for women to better their lot, whereas Stevens thinks that equal rights is the key to improvement. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
As a modern woman, I felt that I had to immediately side with Doris Stevens. Of course women should be equal to men in every respect, especially in the workplace (even though they still aren't in terms of equal pay.) But it wasn't hard to understand Alice Hamilton's argument. What the NWP was proposing was taking away the power of being women from women. It made me think about whether equality is always the right answer. While removing the issue of gender, Hamilton argues that you make women helpless in the world of men. Women are measured to the same standard as men. It seems like the question is, without considering a women as a group with separate goals from men, will they be lost in the workplace? Is that why women still don't have some of the same opportunities in professions or pay today? -Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
== Nella Larsen’s Passing, 1929 ==<br />
<br />
In Nella Larsen's ''Passing'' was very upsetting to read about Clare's double life. It's hard to imagine growing up in a society that valued "pure blood" so strongly that you would deny your ancestry in order to be a part of a soceity that would shun you if they knew the truth. I thought it was an interesting situation to think "if I was in Irene's shoes in the 1920's, what would I do?" -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Was passing a common practice? It seems that passing would not only be infeasible but also extremely uncomfortable. I cannot imagine the pressure and strain of trying to live your life while having to lie to everyone around you and deserting your family. Do these sacrifices speak to the huge difference in standards of living between white and black Americans in this time period? Were conditions so bad for the black/mixed race people that they were willing to make this huge sacrifice and pretend to be someone else? Or was this just a few opportunistic greedy girls trying to get ahead one way or another? Also did any men successfully try and do this? -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I have the same question as Landon, how common was "passing"? It doesn't seem like something anyone would want to do because I feel like living a double life would be such a hassle. At the same time, though, it was amazing to read Clare's statement about how much easier white people had it. "You'd be surprised, 'Rene, how much easier that is with white people than with us." But her explanations why seemed kind of naive in my opinion. Saying that it was either because of how many more white people there were or because they were secure enough with themselves doesn't seem like a satisfying answer. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With women having the ability to vote, I think it would have been interesting to track votes by gender and if a wife's vote was the same or opposite as her husband. Did females double the number of votes or was their a clear difference between what women found as important issues vs. the men? -- Rose Ferguson</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_6_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-22T05:01:08Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>La Barre's Failed Bluff<br />
<br />
The Iroquois Indians were in recurrent wars with the French for a significant amount of time during the 17th century. Calloway states on page 118, "Hunger and disease thinned their ranks... (La Barre's Army)" Why didn't the Iroquois decimate the last of the French forces and possesing the knowledge that La Barre was bluffing his military potential to scare the Iroqois into submission? If the Iroquois destroyed La Barre's Army it would have possibly set in motion a rallying cry of Indian resistence, which leads to my other question. The Native Indians of the Americas were strong and prosperous during the initial European colonization; they had the power to make or break European colonies because many colonies survived only by the genorosity of the Natives (sharing of corn, berries, and meat, as well as farming/hunting techniques, etc). As the years past, the Natives lost their influence and diplomatic power and are in a situation where their population is steadily declining and reaching a point of possible extinction. Why couldn't the Native tribes unify for the sole cause of driving the Europeans out of their lands, or atleast resisting them and forcing the Europeans to live in co-existance? --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
"Boston Massacre Oration"-- I found it really interesting how Joseph Warren compared the Acts of Parliament. He likened it to being slavemasters, and the colonists the slaves. Since Warren lived in Boston, I have no doubt that the New Englanders had pretty radical ideas about slavery and were not as strict about power over them; if freed slaves in the North were able to join the Continental Army and Southern slaves had to get permission, then obviously Boston and New England were slightly more abolitionist than the South was. All that aside, did most colonists feel like slaves under the strict Parliamentary Acts? And if so, then wouldn't the colonists thus realize how oppressive it was and free their slaves? Also, I liked the statement addressed in the questions at the end of the document about Warren feminizing liberty, which makes me wonder whether or not this was the first time liberty has been feminized. I know today liberty is also known as Lady Liberty, further proof is the female Statue of Liberty. Is it possible that Warren or other colonists feminized liberty because then they were able to make power masculine? If liberty is feminine and power masculine, then obviously more colonists would defend liberty under the idea that liberty is weaker than power, which leads me to think that feminizing liberty was a way for Warren to promote independence prior to the Continental Congresses. -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
"Memoir"-- I had never read a first-hand account of the Boston Tea Party before, and reading George Hewes' account sort of "debunked" everything I thought it was like. The actual event wasn't as violent and dangerous as I thought it was and it was actually a bit disappointing; there were no hard-core fighting between the crews and colonists, and most surprising was the fact there was no British resistance. It seemed like the fierce rebels expected every single colonist to feel the way they did about the British and the taxes, as shown in how they treated those caught taking tea and those still loyal to the crown who sold tea to fellow Tories/loyalists. But my question involves the actual Tea Party itself. In the excerpt from the memoir, Hewes said that they were "to do no damage to the ship or rigging," but why? Were the British going to let them dump the tea and have their little "temper tantrum" so long as they didn't damage the ships? Is it possible that the colonists didn't damage the ships and rigging because the ships could have been built in New England or built using American products, thus to damage them would to hurt their fellow colonists? -- Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
In the "Memoir" I agree with Meganne when she said that she was dissappionted in the fact that there was no "fighting", I too thought the British fought back more. I also was wondering if when Hewes and the other colonists dressed up in "costumes of an indian", if the British were supposed to fall for these costumes and think it was the indians who were throwing the tea, or if the costumes were for personal disguise?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
What things would of had to of been different for this war never to of happen? Were they ever close to an agreement not to fight? What were most colonists thinking at the time just before the war began? They knew they were going up against the strongest army in the war. Did most of them believe they didnt have a chance?-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In many of the arguments the patriots made, the notion of "all men being originally equals" seemed to be a central idea in their reasons for wanting independence from England. In Thomas Paine's Common Sense he states that, "..For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in the perpetual preference to all others for ever..." Doesn't this same statement apply to the slavery of blacks and American Indians that was taking place within the colonies at this same time? The colonists spoke of the power of England as tyrannical and complained that their rights were being taken away as if they were slaves....did they not see a connection here with slavery? I also wonder if the colonists ever really realized how economically dependent Britain became on the colonies themselves? Perhaps if they did the colonists could have used this weakness against Britain. What would our country be like today if the relations between the colonies and England had stayed friendly? What would have happened if there never was a revolution? --Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed John and Abigail Adams letters for several reasons. First of all I really like correspondences because I think they make the people more real. To me they are more interesting because they seem to be more individuals like us as opposed to these really obscure historical figures. One of the reasons I like them is I like the way that we see a female patriot's view of the war. Abigail Adams is just as ardent as John Adams in her support of the Revolution. My favorite part is that unlike the idea we are often presented with of women being considered inferior, John Adams seems to treat Abigail like his equal and his letters don't have a condescending air about them. The letters just provide a new way to look at the war and the society in which all of this was occuring.--Melissa Brokaw <br />
<br />
The documents in Calloway show some continual themes throughout Indian-White Relations. Primarily the idea that the Indians ally with whites they expect something in return. However, as Joseph Brant shows in his letter to the Britsh government, they are taken advantage of and used by the British for their own ends. With this kind of continual treatment, what is the incentive for Indians to ally with any whites? --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party is very vivid, and I found it interesting because of the details that were provided that I had never heard about. However, I was most intrigued by the description that Hewes gave of beating of Malcom, the custom-house officer, who had stroke him with his cuddgle earlier, instead of the young boy. I am curious if the actions of this custom house office enraged the colonists enough to give them that extra motivation to carry out the Boston Tea Party or if it was a separate event all together that Hewes had experienced? Quincey Garcia<br />
<br />
I found the Origin & Progess of the American Revolution to be quite detailed in the actions that were carried out on the various victims that the mob took. It seemed that the victims were those with some sort of political power, be it a judge, lawyer, or even a preacher. I was curious if the Mob was just a group of anyone or if there were any requirements for the people who were involved? Was there any action taken against these men or where they just so greatly feared that no one did anyting? Is it possible that many of the other citizens agreed with these actions because they too were displeased with the government officials at this time too? Quincey Garica<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Boston shoemaker’s recollection of the Boston Tea Party it says that people were trying to grab tea off of the deck of the ship and if they were caught the tea was taken away from them, one man was even thrown over boar. It also says that after all of the tea had been thrown into the harbor that there was some still floating in the water and a boat went around and made sure that it all got wet so that it could not be used. Was tea such a valuable commodity that people were willing to risk ridicule and abuse to get it? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In response to Renee's question I have a few words as an avid tea lover myself. It was not that tea was such a valuable commodity that people were willing to risk ridicule and abuse to get it, it was a part of their heritage and culture. The British are very much dedicated to their tea and the colonists, who were likewise trying to become increasingly more British, were trying to be as much dedicated and symmetrical to the culture and practices of England. Also, they just plain liked it and it is not hard to believe that many were addicted to it just like people are addicted to Starbucks coffee today. This account veyr much reminds me of the means and lengths to whihc people went to obtain Beanie Babies back in the day. - Landon James<br />
<br />
I noticed in the Boston Tea Party recollection that they dressed up as indians before going aboard the ships. What was the point of this? Was it just to disguise their identity or were they actually trying to frame the indians? This doesn't make much sense since most the indians were allies with the British and didn't support the rebellious patriots in most cases. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In response to Jessie's question. It makes perfect sense that they would dress up as Indians and you gave the answer to your own question in your post. The Indians were allies with the British, so going aboard a British trading ship coming from England bearing English tea, I imagine the British would think twice before acting harshly and reprimanding Indians for coming aboard their ship when that was one of the minorities they were explicitly trying to recruit to fight int he war against the colonists. - Landon James <br />
<br />
I have a question that's quite off topic yet must be addressed. In "A Boston Shoemaker Recalls British Arrogance and the Boston Tea Party", Hewes writes that after he rebuked Malcolm for almost striking a boy that Malcolm "struck me across the head with his cane, and knocked me down, and by the blow cut a hole in my hat two inches in length" (102). I have rolled this over in my mind for quite a bit and I still cannot figure out how a cane blow to the head can cut a hole in Hews' hat. Does anybody have an answer to this? - Landon James<br />
<br />
The soldier’s experience of the Revolutionary War give the reader an idea about how hard the times of a soldier could be and the many things that were promised to the soldiers that they did not get. It is sad to think that they joined and fought for their country and never received any reparations for their efforts and were basically forgotten about after the war. Was this because people were just glad that the war was over and didn’t want to think about it any more, or was the economy in such shambles that the government could not afford to pay the soldiers? ~Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Shoemaker's recollection of the Boston Tea Party, the beating of the boy and of Malcolm both seem very harsh for the crime. Were all crimes at this time in the region punished to such a harsh extent? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In the Cheda "Promise to Uphold the Covenant Chain," At the end of each paragraph it makes a reference to a gift such as "Giving eight beavers." What is this referring to and why is it included? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
In George Hewes' memoir, according to the doctor, the boy could have died if it wasnt for his strong skull so therefore Malcom's punishment isn't severe. I actually think he got away with it. He nearly killed the little boy for practically no reason. - Eun Yi<br />
<br />
In Boston King's memoir, he says that he runs away to the english militia because of the horrible treatment by his master and to be a freeman after the war. However, i find it strange that King is still a slave in the unit and it seems as if he could choose his master. Because when Captain Lewes asked if he could be his master, he replies no because he is Captain Grey's servant and then after serving him, he went to other masters. -Eun Yi<br />
<br />
When reading "A Loyalist Judges's Catalog of Rebellious Crowds" i started to get really annoyed with the patriots actions. How did they expect to get anyones respect or convert any loyalists to their side when they were acting like blood thirsty mobsters? I'm aware there may be some bias in the statements due to it coming from the writings of a loyalist, but if this is even remotely how the patriots acted then i have a hard time finding sympathy for them in their cause. I almost understand why the British enforced a standing army in the colonies, it sounds like an army was very much needed during these times. Also is this how the loyalists acted? Were there mobs of loyalists running around town beating up any patriot they saw? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
I have more of a general/overarching question...if the British saw that the colonists were getting extremely angry with all of the taxes and laws that they felt were restricting their freedomn as British citizens, then why didn't the British government back off a little bit and give the colonies some breathing room in order to re-group and get back to the old ways of an adult/child relationship-Dani Jones<br />
<br />
This is a small detail and it probably doesn't really make a huge difference to the article but in "Peter Oliver Origin & Progress of the American Revolution" why are all the names of people and places in italics? Is it simply for emphasis; to draw attention to them so the readers don't miss them? Is this a detail that was added later on when the article was published? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I was surprised to find that the accounts of the men particapating in the Boston Tea Party were so mundane leading up to the event. It seems like everyone just went on with their lives as usual and what they were about to do didn't really affect them. Why exactly was this? Why are their lives right before the Boston Tea Party so important to know? Was there a point in proving that the event that was about to happen wasn't taken seriously by those who participated in them? Wouldn't they know that what they were about to do would ultimately alter the course of history? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
In the letters that George Washington wrote to Bryan Fairfax, he uses the term Americans several times. I was just wondering when this concept of "american" was actually put in place. And with my understanding, why would they be referring to themselves as anything but British citizens becuase this was a time that they wanted fair British rights more than anything, so why would they distinguish themselves as a different group of people? Another question that comes to mind is how Washington would have gotten this concept, because as we have discussed, the colonies were not nearly as unified as we are taught to believe -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
To try to answer part of Dani's question about the use of "Americans", it might be because at the time George Washington, along many other Chesapeake Elites, were Patriots, and therefore against British power. It says in the introduction that the "colonial rights had to be defended", so maybe this was the beginning of Washington's Patriotism. I am not completely sure about this, but I believe he is using his point of view( as a Patriot) to disagree and defend the colonies.- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In George Hewes "Memoir", I thought it was interesting that man of the colonist participating in the Boston Tea Party disguised themselves as Indians. I wonder if the colonist chose this disguise on a whim, or if there was supposed to be a deeper parallelism implied. Also the colonists sense of unity in this act surprised me. Being able to work together, the way Hewes describes, under pressure and with little direction, was a commendable feat. These Boston colonist seem to share a single goal, purpose and identity for the first time during the Boston Tea Party. --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In George Washington's Letters to a friend, he uses the term Americans to describe himself and all of the colonist under British rule. Was the term American, in refernce to the North American colonist commonly accepted in 1774 when this letter was written? Washington obviously feels the need for the colonies to become a separate nation of their own, but had others already accepted themselves as Americans? --Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
Like Quincey, I was curious about the account in “Memoir” concerning Malcom and the beating. My question is though how the Boston Tea Party connects to the story of a man beating another with his cudgel and then the resulting flogging etc.? Is it showing the mind set of the colonists at the time and their retaliation? I think I’m just missing the connection between the two stories. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In Calloway, the Chickasaw Chiefs “Message to Congress” seems to ask the question who is in charge of the tribes. The chiefs basically ask for American guidance or leadership saying, “Such a man living among us particularly at this time, would rescue us from the darkness and confusion we are in.” With a past where the Indians want nothing to do with colonists or someone trying to take control of them would they then ask for their guidance in who it was appropriate to trade with? Isn’t that asking for Americans to take some sort of leadership over their tribes? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
Burke’s speech- Burke speaks about the colonists’ spirit of freedom, “The fact is so; and these people of the Southern Colonies are much more strongly, and with an higher and more stubborn spirit, attached to liberty, than those to the North-ward. Such…will be all masters of slaves, who are not slaves themselves.” Do historians believe that slave ownership caused Americans to be more protective of their own freedom and therefore, more sensitive to British control?-Emily King<br />
<br />
Soldier’s Experience- Martin states, “I never spent a thought about numbers, the Americans were invincible in my opinion.” Did many soldiers enlist into the American army due to these patriotic feelings or were there other reasons? Did many feel pressured into enlisting?–Emily King<br />
<br />
In the "Boston Massacre Oration," Joseph Warren is in complete oppposition to Parliament's numerous tax Acts that have been passed on the colonies. We talked in class about how the colonistes argued "no taxation without representation," and Warren definitely exploits this argument in his speech. He even makes a reference to Parliament's rebuttal of "virtual representation" by saying "I would next ask, whether the lords, who compose the aristocratic branch of the legislature, are peers of America?" Warren definitely expresses the growing unrest and dissatisfaction of the Patriots with Parliament's attempts to govern the colonies. - Iris Onks<br />
<br />
<br />
In Peter Oliver's Origin and Progress of the American Revolution, I couldn't help but notice what appears to be blatant embellishment of some of the facts. For example, describing Colonial Gilbert's beating of 100 men with a single arm and the FOUR THOUSAND MEN who attacked Thomas Oliver's house. What was the purpose of this document? Was it meant as propaganda for the British to quell these rebellions or was it just written to perhaps save some post-war pride for the loyalists? Can we even trust any of these events really happened?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
In Thoughts on the Present State of American Affairs, in Thomas Paine's Common Sense, the author suggests several future plans for an Independent Republic including the idea of a "President", equal representation, and delegated districts. Were these ideas his own? Were they debated in the Constitution Convention as such? How revolutionary were these thoughts?<br />
-Adam Shlossman<br />
<br />
The one major thing I realized when reading the "Boston Massacre Oration" was that the language seemed very different from English. I mean this in the way that Warren's speech was very much like the dialect and spelling used by Americans today. How could the language have changed so dramatically if America was mainly settled by British people? Were the colonists notice this growing change in dialect and spelling from traditional English? -Ally Campo<br />
<br />
In Thomas Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" it seemed little he was contradicting himself throughout the passage. How could he be a man that was so pressed on limiting the spread of slavery but yet held bias views about the slaves? Is it that he really believes all the stereotypes about slaves or is he merely speaking about what white people thought of the slaves? -Ally Campo <br />
<br />
While reading Martin's "Memoir," I was shocked by how badly the soldiers were treated during the Revolution. They weren't really provided with any of the items in their contracts. Also, they weren't taken care of at all. They were forced to march for days at a time without rest, they had no proper lodgings, and very little food and clothing. Why were the soldiers treated so poorly and with such disrespect? - Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the letters between the John and Abigail Adams. I think that it shows a personal side of the two of them that is very sweet. To see the viewpoint from a woman in that time who was so closely linked to one of the most influential men of the Revolution very interesting. ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
In "Memoir" I found it interesting that in the last three paragraphs Hewes talks about how the citizens went out the morning after they raided the ships and beat the tea floating on the water to a point where it was useless. I guess that this makes sense but I never actually thought about tea floating in the harbor! ---Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
<br />
In Joseph Plumb Martin's "memoir 1830", I noticed he had alot of pride for a young man in America. He felt that he knew enough about what he stood for to fight "the mother land" as they called Britain. Were farmers a good source of politcal stance and information, since that is where he received his information and chose to call himself a patriot. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In the "March 22, 1775 Speech to Parlaiment", Burke gives a fairly descriptive breakdown of the colonies and how each is based on different principles. The Northern colonies are described with a Religious standard and the Southern Colonies having slavery and how people view freedom differently. Since the colonies weren't really fighting for a common goal, Did the regions pride themselves on their differences? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
I personally enjoyed reading the "Letters of John and Abigail Adams." It was interested to me to see how they interacted with each other. I found it unusual that the only greeting reference was John to Abigail saying "dearest Friend." You don't exactly find greeting cards at Hallmark in the Wife section starting out with "Dear Friend." It was also fun to watch them politely argue when she complains about his short responses to her letters.--Megan Malecha<br />
<br />
I thought the picture where John Malcolm is getting tarred was very descriptive in that the British really portray the Americans as bad people. The looks on the Americans faces say it all. Im sure when people back in Britian saw this picture they thought of the Americans as barbarick people when really they are just trying to win there freedom.-Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
In the textbook in the section talking about the Boston Massacre it says that there was a black man, Crispus Attucks, was one of the five people killed. It also says that his funeral was held along with the white men's funerals and that he was treated as an equal. Was he given a better funeral than most black people of the time because he was killed 'for the cause'? I just don't see how they could have rationalized treating him better after death than they did during most slave's lives. ~ Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
Also in the textbook reading it was said that two soldiers convicted of manslaughter were branded on the thumbs. I was just wondering if this was a common punishment for murder, because I have never heard of it before, and what exactly was branded on their thumbs? If it is known... ~Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In the Memoir of R.T. Hewes, I noticed that he wrote it many years after it happened. Thus, the source can not be that reliable. I also noticed that when he talked about what happened when the men went to dump the tea overboard that the captain willingly gave them the keys as long as they didn't hurt the ship. Why didn't he try to signal the British ships docked neerby, or keep the men away from the cargo? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In "A Loyalist Judge's Catalog of Rebellious Crowds,"I found that because the writer was a loyalist he might have been bias toward other loyalist's like himself. I also noticed that during all the mob riots, not many people were hurt, but rather just scared into doing what the mob wanted. Was this common? -Kristina Scrimshaw<br />
<br />
In Peter Oliver's "Origin & Progress of the American Revolution, 1774-1775", I found data that contrasted with information in class. I had thought that the mob's intents were not to kill, but to scare. However, in Oliver's accounts, the mobs came very close to killing the English supporters. Did they actually intend on killing them, but different circumstances prevented them from doing so? Or did they intend to bring them as close to death as possible to scare them? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Atiwaneto's "Speech Resisting Colonial Expansion", I found his plea to the English very well written and thought out from their point of view. But right before and during the Revolutionary War, how much attention was actually paid to the Indians? Were the Patriots and English fighting to have them on their side? Or were they left alone, apart from traveling and slight skirmishes in their land? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
I really like the letters of Abigail Adams and John Adams. I read the same letters in high school and still love them today. I find it really interesting that Abigail asks John to not forget the women and his response is even more interesting. The way my high school teacher put it was, he basically told her that she was a silly woman and should mind her own business. I also find it interesting that he basically flirts with her in response to her comment by calling her saucy. I still enjoy the letters 6 years later. -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
One thing I found interesting about the letters of John and Abigail Adams was when she was describing the cannon's going off and said that she went out to Penn Hill that day and was practically a spectator to the war. I know that during the Civil War people would set up chairs and watch the fight but I did not know that it also happened in some sense during the Revolution. I wonder when it was that people's view of war changed to the point where we could be appalled by people viewing a battle as if it was a sport. And now a days the innocent civilians would probably be attacked along with the soldiers. -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T09:46:05Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I thought "Open Air Suffrage" was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren't all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
It's interesting how women are said to have "feminized" politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth<br />
<br />
Elizabeth asks about "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women's delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I'd be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to "militant" tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T04:47:15Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring<br />
<br />
I thought "Open Air Suffrage" was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren't all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments328--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-02-21T04:06:58Z<p>192.65.245.34: </p>
<hr />
<div>I found Jane Addams's view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting. Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today's political climate. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman's rights at the time. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I found Leonara O'Reilly's "A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage" to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women's suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women's suffrage was in the Congressmen's best interests. --Justin Mattos<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women's work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for women's work rights. ~Jackie R.<br />
<br />
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday<br />
<br />
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party. My guess is they saw the party as being 'progressive' and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage. I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another. The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible. Did this happen at most prisons? Does it still happen? -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I found the"Partisan Women in the Progressive Era" by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn't know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women's auxiliaries could have been seen as women's lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women's involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women's auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman's Party, 1921" it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women's suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn't pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, "A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters" by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don't understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in "Front Door Lobbying' for Suffrage' by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank<br />
<br />
I found Marie Jenny Howe's An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated "women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats." The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women's organizations? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I'm not sure if I agree with Amanda's sentiment of "funny" when referring to Howe's "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue." In one passage she states, "Enfranchisement is what makes man man. Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman. If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man. There would be no difference between them. and don't you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?" What romance novel was this lady reading! She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, "Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!" Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women? It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda's post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing. I think the "Antis" were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM <br />
<br />
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. "She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half..." What I don't understand is how men of this time period don't understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn't be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn't get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn't do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be "blasphemy." Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don't realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women's decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda. You're right when you say that women influenced their husbands' political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda. In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves. I don't think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did. But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment "A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government..." But I think the fact that men didn't really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their "domestic sphere" and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women's place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the "evolution" of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn't that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway's qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period. It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do. However in today's world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever. Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.<br />
--Michelle M.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly. These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives. They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did. Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for. Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren't naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don't understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub<br />
<br />
After reading Florence Luscomb's piece, "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," I couldn't help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard. The numbers she gave at the end, "We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures" is absolutely incredible. When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts. I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic. If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity. Oh, and my apologies for using the word "suffragette." Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Like Kelly I found "Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic," of great interest. Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women's population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM <br />
<br />
I really liked Maud Wood Park's "'Front Door Lobbying' For Suffrage." I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause. My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said "He said, 'I'm with you; I'm for it, I'm going to vote for it. Now don't bother me,' all in one breath." There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I'm sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits. -- Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Kelly. The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society. Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps. They couldn't just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye<br />
<br />
Marie Howe's essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before. Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable. She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, "women cannot understand politics." Well, why can't they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren't facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife. Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.<br />
--Michelle Mardeusz<br />
<br />
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws & hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
<br />
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won't corrupt the women and that women won't neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius <br />
<br />
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway's speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in "a spirit of warfare between the sexes" but in the "spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women" (96). I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women "like" men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist's have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue". I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family. Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad<br />
<br />
I was also a little confused at first when I read "An Anti-Suffrage Monologue," but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the "antis." She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about "Open-Air Meetings" by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful "summer of campaigning" I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I found the the "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote "If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men" Really?? Did someone actually write that? "What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge." Again, really!? I'm not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson<br />
<br />
I thought "Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail" was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul's actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women's rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski<br />
<br />
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway's speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T02:56:33Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Suffolk County Court Records */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
In the "Suffolk County Court Records" one of the cases talked about "Sarah Carpenter, presented upon strong suspicion of being with child..." She was obviously not married because they did not refer to her by her husbands name and also because it would not have been suspicious if she had been with child and had been married. They found that she was not with child and so did not set a punishment however, I was wondering what sentence would they have given her if she had been with child? I assume that it would have been rather severe considering women's expected roles in society. -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T02:51:06Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Suffolk County Court Records */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T02:49:27Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Suffolk County Court Records */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the cases in the "Suffolk County Court Records" mentioned that "Ursula, the wife of Henry Edwards, presented for striking her husband and abusive carriage and language..." I was wondering if only women were brought up on charges for striking a spouse or if men were also brought up on such charges? Considering the position in society and community that women were expected to keep it would not surprise me if only women were brought up on charges of abuse. -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_3_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-01-31T02:35:29Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Arabella Sermon */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Arabella Sermon ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Arabella Sermon by John Winthrop, there is an entire paragraph telling the people that they have to untied in order to survive in the new world. Which I think makes a lot of sense. When we look at the Jamestown example we see that they were really not united as they all were trying to reach their own goals. Does anyone think that Jamestown would have turned out better or differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth?--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
<br />
In response to Melissa Brokaw's question of Jamestown turning out differently if the colonists had not been so selfishly pursuing wealth, it may have turned out differently, however there were still different circumstances that faced each of the colonies. The New Englanders were lucky in that most of the Indian population around the water was wiped out before they got there as it saved them from direct warfare in the beginning. They also knew how to plant and grow different crops to suit their individual needs. The Jamestown settlement was unlucky in that they encountered an Indian attack on the first night in America. However, they also needed the corn and such the Indians provided to survive which made it difficult to continue a process of wiping out the tribes. The Indians knew that the colonists needed them to survive whereas the Indians in the New England area knew that the Puritans and Pilgrims could survive on their own with little help. It was also beneficial to the New Englanders that they had ready-made homes built by a tribe that had died out from disease. It saved them from completely freezing out the first winter of their settlement as building many houses that could withstand the cold within a short time period was unlikely. The Jamestown colonists had to build their own houses, as well as create ways of protecting their settlement against Indian attacks. These are just a few of the reasons why the the Puritan and Pilgrim colonies may have had a better chance of succeeding over the Jamestown colony. They had skills already needed to survive, and had bits of luck to help them out along the way. It wasn't just a factor that the Jamestown colonists looking for more money, it was also that they did not have little bits of luck along the way. - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the sections of "A Model of Christian Charity" that I found interesting was the part where he quotes Matthew: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you"... I think that this is interesting because it reminded me of "the golden rule" of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is something that I'm sure most every young child in America learns and that schools try to instill in elementary school children to this day. I think that the fact that John Winthrop speaks of the sense of treating another as you would like to be treated gives a lot of explanation for why this view is continued today. If the Puritans had not attempted to include this in their communities, would we, Americans, try to instill the same sense in our children today? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams ==<br />
<br />
Roger Williams provides an interesting perspective on the Native Americans. Often times we are given two images of the Native American. One that they were hostile savages or two, that they were inferior in intelligence and status in the world. Williams provides a different view of that. Williams states, "It is a strange truth, that a man shall generally finde [sic] more free entertainment and refreshing amongst these Barbarians, then amongst thousands that call themselves Christians..." Which is obviously a different take, not only on the Native American but it also cast some dispersions on the idea that being Christian meant you were inherently a good person. Williams also says, "Nature knows no difference between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, bodies..." This is also a different perception as most Europeans thought they were superior, an idea that continued to grow in the following years. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
The account of Roger Williams tells that he was a Puritan minister, which i assume would make him a high standing member of society. It is mentioned that he was eventually banished from Massachusetts in 1635. I was curious as to the reason he was banished, was it because of his relations with the indians? He was curious about their habits and culture and wasn't harsh acting towards them based on his own words. This must have gone against the other colonists opinions of how a Puritan should act toward a native american. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger William's account was interesting to read because it gave us a different incite into how the Native Americans really may have really acted. Williams went to the Native Americans peacefully and they in turn received him peacefully and they helped him to survive. Maybe if this is how the other colonists had treated the Native Americans and had tried to get to know them instead of trying to change them or take advantage of them, then their relationships with each other would have been more peaceful. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
I also thought that it was interesting that Williams did not try to convert the Native Americans like many of the other priests that were in the new world. He instead learned about their religion and did not judge them. He also writes that the Native Americans did not know of such bad sin as Europeans did. He says that they did now know of drunkenness and gluttony and crimes such as robberies, murders, and adulteries we not heard of among them. Does this point not prove that the Native Americans were civilized in their own way? They may not have been exactly like the Europeans, but they had their own set of moral standards. ~ Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
== Suffolk County Court Records ==<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting that the court assigned the fines owed by the accused continued until the sentence is performed. However, the court determined when the sentence would be performed. Ironic? Did courts sometimes purposefully delay some of the sentences to ensure a flow of money into their pockets? Or were they strict with upholding the decisions they had made, and quickly carried out the punishments? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In the court records, each person is accused of their crime and given a sentence. In the records, it doesn’t say convicted or give any evidence of a person committing any of the crimes. Is this just because it’s a short version of all the cases or were people just accused and then punished without justification? And because they are all just accused and never convicted, is the wording different or is that another difference in their society compared to our own? -Rory Reese<br />
<br />
In the Testimony against Accused Witch Bridget Bishop, it mentions a book that the accused witch signed. The testimony says, “And she now testified, that this Bishop, tempted her to sign the book again, and to deny what she had confessed.” What is this book and what is its significance in “tempting” the accused witch? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
The testimony against accused witch Bridget Bishop mentions numerous times throughout that the victims were attached or tormented by "the shape of the prisoner" i was a little confused as to what they were referring to. Does the shape of the prisoner refer to the "ghost" of Bridget or her spirit? There were numerous words that the Puritans used throughout the testimony that are much different than english today and are confusing as to what their meaning is such as "gone a matter of three rods", "grind her grist" and "divers months". It's interesting to see the different kinds of language used by the early settlers of our country. - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In this record one can see how American society has dramatically changed, specifically in reference to religion. The Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." and also the Free Exercise Clause, "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Which would make a significant amount of the so called "criminals" of the time in Massachusetts innocent. --Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I did some further research on the Establishment Clause and I found that Roger Williams' exile and flight to Rhode Island partially influenced the creation of this constitutional amendment. --Nick Scott--</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T02:46:56Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Calloway Readings */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
In Pareja's section about women he asks "Having given birth recently, have you considered eating these things as sinful?" What is his meaning behind this? Is this still about the fish being sinful? The other things he references are things like charcoal, dirt, pottery, fleas and lice. I would not consider fish among these things to be sinful or dirty. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in "The Arrival of the Dutch", the Native Americans believed that the man that "wore the red clothes" was perceived to be "the great Mannitto (Supreme Being). -- Katie Mauro</div>192.65.245.34https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=HIST_131--Week_2_Questions/CommentsHIST 131--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-01-25T02:43:41Z<p>192.65.245.34: /* Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries */</p>
<hr />
<div>I've started to organize the comments a little bit. Look over the structure and add your comments in the appropriate place -- Dr. M <br />
<br />
== Comparing Documents ==<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed was the contrast in Columbus' journal to Bernal Diaz's. The main one being the civilizations. Columbus was further east, however these tribes had poor weapons, and were so "ignorant" as to cut themselves on a sword. However, with Diaz's experience, he describes a rich culture, one with classes, a monarch, ornamentation etc... as well as weapons that he described as, in a way, better than their own. The writings were only technically separated by twenty two years. What accounted for such differences? was it the separation in the islands that led to no one, huge sophisticated tribe? Was there a difference in *resources that led them to live such vastly different lives that were relatively close in time span? *(ie gold, Columbus notes they only had small piercings where as Diaz describes weapons ornamented with precious stones and gold, Montezuma feasts on a variety of food, however Columbus observes fairly little food outside of trading). '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
The next is that nearly all of the recounting of the Indians first seeing Europeans denotes their impression they're from the heavens or some form of a "supreme" being. I'm not saying the Indians subjected themselves to European oppression because Europeans were obviously already looking to explore and expand; but did these mistaken beliefs lead the Europeans to think that the land was theirs, more so than usual due to their almost god-like treatment by the Indians? '''(Include name please--Dr. M)'''<br />
<br />
In the document, The King of the Congo writes to the King of Portugal portrays the Portuguese and Congolese relationship as fruitful and prosperous, soon after the Portuguese exploit Congo for all that it is worth, like a parasite. This common theme of European greed can also be seen in Bernal Diaz's accounts of his journey to Mexico with Hernando Cortes. The Spanish have a fruitful relationship with the Mexica (Aztecs) soon after the Spanish like the Portuguese exploit the Aztecs for their gold and wealth. In relation to Julius Caesar's famous quote, "Veni, Vidi, Vici." The Spanish came, they saw, they conquered! The Europeans had an agenda in the New World, gold! Besides the obvious agenda of gold and wealth, what was the reasoning behind the Europeans to convert the Natives? Historically they were either enslaved, driven from their homelands or murdered because of their resistance, so why waste their efforts to convert them?--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
I would like to comment/add to the above comment from the unknown poster (for the time being) about the indigenous natives of America and their treatment of Europeans as god-like beings: If I remember correctly, according to the Aztec religion one of their Gods was suppose to return around the time when the Spanish arrived and Montezuma presumed Cortes was that God. That is why he said "...you have come to sit on your seat of authority." You can google Montezuma or find books in the library specifically about this topic. As for the other indigenous natives of America, I can only assume that they percieved the Europeans to be far more advanced than their own culture; specifically the iron armor, weaponry, and their ships, which they thought were floating islands.--Nick Scott--<br />
<br />
It seemed to me that all of the different Native American tribes had a prophecy/dream/etc. that the whites were coming almost directly before they came. Did traders perchance warn or tell certain people within the tribes that the whites were coming? Was the word spread through the wanderers and traders who had seen them, and their accounts were never recorded within the tribal history? Did people see them on their wanderings away from the community, then come back and pretend to have a dream that they were coming? Or was it just coincidence? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In comparison in the Johnson to the Calloway reading, the Calloway reading suggests that the Europeans were always peacefully welcomed to the new world and the Native Americans were naturally peaceful people. Whereas, Johnson suggests that the Native Americans were savage and seemed to attack the Europeans when all they wanted to do was make peace with the Natives. Who has the more accurate account of what really happened? Whose view should we trust? – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
To comment off of Renee Roser, I thought it was interesting how in both of Calloways first two articles the Native Americans see the Europeans as threatening. The only diffence is that in the first article they greet him with peace and receive instructions and teachings and in the second article they are excited to greet him, but receive useful "presents" such as axes, hoes, etc. Doeas this show the importance of different gifts to differenet Native Americans?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
In the Johnson reading, majority of Indians seemed to be protrayed as naive people and europeans as intelligent people...at least more intelligent than Indians. Also, it shows that in some of the accounts that some Europeans are innocent and thought somewhat highly of Indians until they felt they were going to be harmed and justified their action of killing off Indians as self-defense but in some accounts you can clearly see that they wiped out tribes out of greed but couldn't it be true that in the minds of some Europeans, they were really just defending themselves instead of going after the Indians' gold and to use them in the slave trade? (because they did say that they tried to get along but the Indians retaliated against them.) And when they defended themselves they just happen to take their gold and use them in the slave trade since being wealthy at this time was very important?...or not?.. ---EuN Yi---<br />
<br />
In the 1492 acccount, Columbus describes the Indians and says "I believe that they would become Christiams very easily, for it seemed to me that they had no religion." In many of the stories, it is said that the Indians believed the Europeans were sent from the heavens, if there was no religion, then why would they think they were from heaven? I also always thought that Native American Indians were polytheistic, but in the 1854 July 4 Speech, a Great Creator or Spirit is mentioned. Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
The differences of story in the writings of Juan Troyano and the Mexicans are very interesting. The Spaniards blame the Indians for giving them no choice but to attack while the Mexicans describe the Spaniards as a hostile army preparing for battle. After reading both, I tend to trust the Mexican accounts more so then the Spaniards. Is this the same view historians take on today? -Emily King<br />
<br />
By 1560, it was apparent that the Spaniards were on there way to controlling most of the world. What did they start doing differently that contributed to them losing power so quickly.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
After reading Josiah Quinney's speech you really see how unfair the Indians were treated when the explorers came and took over their lands. Quinney talks about how his people fought wars for other races where they had no business being in the fight and after all this they were still removed from their lands and forced to relocate.- Bryan Quintana<br />
<br />
== Robert Cole's Inventory ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Inventory", I found it interesting that all of the inventory was measured in pounds of tobacco. I know that tobacco was used a lot by the settlers, but I would have thought that within a community, as it was from one base country, that they would continue to use the same currency that their European "home" country used. As most of the communities near each other had the same "home" country, wouldn't it have made more sense to continue to use the same type of currency that they used? Granted, there are no banks and such in the New World, however, didn't most of the settlers come with money, and were given money by the government? - Alex Zelin<br />
<br />
In Document 3-3 (A Yeoman Planter's Tobacco Farm) many of the lines end in how many pounds of tobacco each item was worth. Why was it always compared this way? I gathered from the introduction to the account that there was a hidden meaning but is this it? What did tobacco have to do with all of these items? What is the connection? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
I thought the way that they measured everything in tobacco was interesting. It certainly did bring it home to me exactly how important tobacco was to the colonists of the New World. I don't exactly know why they listed everything in tobacco measurements, yet I think it is because tobacco is such a big crop--it's ''the'' crop and the colonists were able to trade or barter with it: for example, one butter tub could be traded for twenty-five pounds of tobacco. Is it possible that the colonists used tobacco not only to trade/barter with the Indians, but also with each other when money was scarce? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
I also thought that the way that everything was measured in tobacco. I think that this really shows the importance that tobacco played into the economy at that time. With tobacco being the main source of money from the southern colonies it makes sense that everything else was measured against it. -Virginia Stratton<br />
<br />
== letters from King Afonso to King Joao III ==<br />
<br />
In the letters from King Afonso to King Joao III, Afonso continually addresses Joao’s obligation to the Congo based on faith. Why is that such a strong obligation in Afonso’s eyes? And because throughout the letters Afonso is asking for the same things over and over again, can we assume that these wishes aren’t granted? Maybe these wishes aren’t granted because faith is not a strong negotiation point in politics even in the 1500s even. –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
I was also a little curious as to why there weren't any letters from King Joao III in response to Afonso. Did he receive any letters that just weren't included in the book, or did he not respond to Afonsos's pleas at all? If he did, was he agreeing or disagreeing with Afonso? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
In the document from King Alfonso to King Joao III, King Alfonso always ends with the line "I kiss your hand many times" or something to that affect. Why is this? I'm assuming it's a sign of respect but how did it come about? Was it only with King Joao or was it common for all letters to kings? -Jenna Shevlin<br />
<br />
The Letter to King Joao III from King Afonso 1526, There is a paragraph where Afonso asks Joao not to send more ships, because these people are capable of being schooled and could use priests. He also says "this kingdom be neither a place of trade nor a place of transit for slaves." Which isn't likely to happen at this point. Afonso addresses Joao with your highness and is humbling himself throughout the letter, even though he is a king himself. Is the language of this letter because Afonso is aware of what European countries are known to do or did Joao have a higher stature than Afonso? Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
In both letters from King Afonso to King Joao I thought it was interesting how King Afonso never seems satified with the efforts from King Joao. Why is he so dependent on Joao and not want to become independent? Is this because of their faithful relationship and trade alliance?- Taylor Warner<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that Afonso's manner in his letter writing is so polite even though he is basically acknowledging the fact that his kingdom is slipping away with the arrival of the Portugese. Is he being so polite because it is merely his manner or is it that he is trying very hard to make his case to Joao and thinks that being polite and almost, subservient will help his case? Or perhaps I am reading this in the 21st century light where this extremely polite letter makes me suspicious.<br />
--Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
After reading King Alfonso's letters to King Joao, I immediately wondered where King Joao's letters of response were, if there were any, and what their content was. King Alfonso's three letters are all written in a very short time span of less than 4 months, and because some of the requests made are repeated in each letter(the request to rid the kingdom of merchants) I wonder if there was any response from King Joao at all. <br />
--Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
I think King Alfonso's letters to King Joao were very interesting. His letters have such a humble tone and beg King Joao continuously for support in both trade and disciplinary actions. I always thought that native peoples and kings despised European intrusion on their lands and economy. However, King Alfonso has become very dependent on it and constantly seeks King Joao's help. Why is King Alfonso so dependent on King Joao? His country has thrived for a long time without the Portuguese influence, why does he suddenly need their help so much now? -Iris Onks<br />
<br />
== Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition ==<br />
<br />
In Juan Troyano’s account of the Coronado expedition, he described a situation where the Spaniards offered peace, but the Indians refused it and revolted. The Spaniards then retaliated and killed many of them. While in Florentine Codex’s account of the conquest of Mexico, written around the same time period, he writes of the Spaniards who readied themselves for war while the Indians offered peace, but the natives were killed off anyways. My question is, when there are two sides to every story, like the conquest of Mexico, how do historians compensate for both perspectives? Or how do they decipher a coherent story for example to put in a history book? –Rory Reese<br />
<br />
<br />
== Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries ==<br />
<br />
In the questions Pareja to instruct Spanish Missionaries about the sins of Florida's Timucuan Indian he emphasizes the fact that women should not being eating fish during menses and also during different times? What is the big deal with fish? The other animals that he mentions are very lowly and dirty, where as with the certain religioins fish are esteemed animals. -Dani Jones<br />
<br />
It is obvious that Pareja spent enough time (18 years) with the Timucuan Indians to observe and learn their customs but was bias ever a question to the missionaries? In other words, why did he have so much authority on governing this culture just because he was a priest? Also, is there basis in the bible to suggest that ALL of these customs are sinful? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the questions under "For Single and Married Men" and "For Married and Single Women" include questions that would be considered sinful if the person was single but not necessarily sinful if they were married. It made me wonder why he did not separate questions for married and single people? -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
I was wondering what commandment Pareja was referring to in "on the 6th commandment". It sounds like it would make more sense if the 6th was "thou shalt not commit adultery" and not "thou shalt not kill". -- Katie Mauro<br />
<br />
== Florentine Codex account (Accounts from the Mexican/Aztec people)==<br />
<br />
In the Florentine Codex account, I found it interesting and ironic how the Europeans attacked the tribe during their celebration of the feast of Hiitzilopochtli ("the god of war and the chief god in the Mexican pantheon"). Also, in the inventory when they valued Cole's possession in tobacco punds, couldn't it be because during this time tobacco was the colonies main crop/a big part of their economy? ---Eun Yi---<br />
<br />
In this account, I found it interesting what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. Actually, I just found it interesting to hear a Native American's account during the conquest instead of the Spaniard's account. It seemed that there were several views of what the Indians thought of the Spaniards. At first, the Spaniards seemed other-worldly or like something from a dream. Then the Spaniards turned into monsters and the Indians had to retaliate to protect themselves. I know that history is always told by the winners, a lesson that is established and reaffirmed every time there is a conflict, yet why do textbook writers not include a glimpse of the "losers," such as the Indians? Since the Indians are as much a part of American history as, say, the Revolutionary War is, then why do we never hear about how they responded to the threats of being taken hostage or conquered during the Age of Exploration? Do writers or historians assume that since there isn't a lot of physical evidence or artifacts to justify or further explain what the Indians thought or saw, it isn't worth talking about? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
== Columbus's Account ==<br />
In the diary of Christopher Columbus, Columbus assumes that the Indians believe the discoverers are from heaven. In past history classes, I have heard that the Indians never really believed the Europeans were gods. (I cannot remember if this was only a specific group). If so, did Columbus make this false assumption or was it the fault of the priest that transcribed the original diary? -Emily King<br />
<br />
I know this question was addressed in class but im still a little curious. If we only celebrate two people in national holidays, isn't it a little ironic that one is a man who preached for the ending of slavery, and the other is a man who was one of the main reasons it started in the first place? If it is common knowledge now who the real Columbus was, and that he wasn't the discoverer of America, nor was he the kind of man most Americans would enjoy celebrating, then why exactly do we still have a holiday to think about how great he was? Aren't there other more important people that could take his place? - Jessie Bright<br />
<br />
== Bernal Diaz del Castillo ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Waterhouse's Declaration ==<br />
<br />
When the colonists first arrived in Jamestown, they had problems with Chief Powhatan and the Indians in the area. However, after the whole mock-killing thing with Captain John Smith and Pocahontas saving him-which represented Powhatan accepting the white colonists into his tribe (all this is summarized in Roark), the Indians and the whites were on good terms with each other. In fact, the colonists at first depended on the Indians for food and survival. I can understand that when Powhatan's brother (who will be referred to as Ope because I don't want to type out the long name) assumed the position as Chief when Powhatan died, the colonists were and felt betrayed when Ope led an uprising and attack against them. But were the colonists really right to feel as betrayed as they did? The colonists were taking advantage of the Indians' hospitality and I can't recall the colonists ever doing anything in return for them. Certainly the colonists had to have known that when the power changed hands after Powhatan's death, the way things were done had to change--the colonists couldn't have been that naive, right? - Meganne Lemon<br />
<br />
When Waterhouse is justifying why the destruction of the Indians is good for the Plantation, his third reason is because the Colonists will fully be able to enjoy the "luxuries" that the Indians enjoy. He then continues by saying, "The Deere and other beasts will be in safety....but by each particular Indian were destroied at all times of the yeare..." (page 37). He makes this seem like the Indians killed these animals senselessly and in mass amounts. Was he really so naive and ignorant of the customs of Indians to not know that Indians used every part of each animal they killed? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
== Calloway Readings ==<br />
It is interesting that in the Calloway reading that there are three different accounts of the Europeans coming to the Americas. Each tribe perceived the whites as something different. The first account a young woman sees a “floating island” coming to them and when the whites arrive they are received peacefully. The second account the boat is first spotted off in the distance and it was first perceived as a threat and warriors from other tribes were summoned fight, but then the Natives think that the whites are the great Mannitto and warmly receive him and celebrate his coming. In the third account there is a prophecy told of the white people coming and when they arrive they are treated well because the Natives believe that the whites are sick because their skin is so pale compared to themselves. In all of these cases, the Native Americans worry about the “strange people” coming, but in the end, the white are peacefully received. – Renee Rosser<br />
<br />
In the Calloway reader, the last one we read was by Josiah Quinney. He points out that the terrible story of how the Natives suffered is not in students books in school. Even now, it is only in the later years of education, or even in college that the story is really told. I tutor a 4th grader and recently he and I were working on the settlement of Jamestown, no where did his book really even touch upon the atrocities committed by whites on Native Americans, and this is over 150 years after Quinney gave his speech. --Melissa Brokaw<br />
<br />
I found the written responses to the Indians first encounter with the Europeans fascinating. There is a theory (although I have forgotten the name of it) that deals with quantum physics and the universe and how there are so many things that exist and we can’t see them solely because our brain can't process that they are actually there. A common example was apparently when Columbus arrived the Native Americans couldn’t see the ships because in their brains they had no concept of what a ship was or knowledge of it. However, the Indians could see the ripples in the water, and after several days they could finally see the ships because their brains had to adjust and be able to fully absorb the actual idea of a ship. I’m not sure how credible this theory is but I thought I would throw it out there for discussion. ---Lindsay Bothwell<br />
<br />
I would like to respond to Nick Scott’s comment first. I don’t believe that Montezuma or any of the other natives pretended to know when their god was supposed to return. I think it was just a sort of prophecy put forth by the Aztecs that ‘one day’ their gods would come back to rule. Montezuma says “If only one of them [previous rulers] could see and behold what has now happened in my time,” and I take this to mean that he did not know the gods would come back in his lifetime. –Mary Johnston<br />
I also want to try and answer the first ‘unknown poster’s’ question. I think s/he makes an interesting point about the possibility that the Europeans thought they had a right to the land because the natives treated them like gods. I definitely agree that this could have been a contributing factor to the Europeans taking advantage of the natives, but I also believe that if they hadn’t been treated like gods they probably would have tried to exploit the people anyway. –Mary Johnston<br />
<br />
In John Heckewelder's recorded account of the first meeting of the Dutch and the Native Americans as told by the Delawares and Mahicans, there was reference made several times to a red-clothed man. The account says the Indians believed him to be the Mannitto or Supreme being, and were curious as to why his skin was white. Later in the text the Indians seem to regard every white man as a sort of sudo-Mannitto, still inferior to the supreme Mannitto. Was this red-clothed man merely the captain of the ship, or was he infact a priest of someone of even greater significance?<br />
-Helen Dinndorf<br />
<br />
In the Josiah Jeremy Reading of the girl who dreamed of the floating island, it states that, "the necromancers, were displeased, they did not like it that the coming of these foreigners should been intimated to this young girl, and not to them," (page 34). Had their magic never been questioned before? -Laura Peters<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that in all three accounts the Native Americans were happy with the Europeans' arrival and accepted them right away. This shows how peaceful the Native Americans were. I also found it interesting that all three accounts interpreted the Europeans differently. In one, they thought Europeans were gods, in another that they were sick, and in the third that they were simply men with paler skin. This shows how the Native Americans tried to make sense of people and things that were so foreign to them. -Iris Onks</div>192.65.245.34 Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38