McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Afrisk</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Afrisk"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Afrisk"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T18:24:37Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-12-02T02:05:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess.  Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen.  The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters.  It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved.  The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling.  This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked.  They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those.  Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open.  Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward&amp;#039;s contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; actually appeared in the film and wasn&amp;#039;t just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; was. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the &amp;quot;burglery&amp;quot;.  - LeAnn T.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of &amp;quot;slush funds.&amp;quot; Correct terms were also used, like &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Deep throat.&amp;quot; Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting &amp;quot;four more years&amp;quot; at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal.  Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble.  The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal.  The level of investigating was well done.  It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department.  Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation.  –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the film was able to include things that were not important to Watergate, with the radios on in the back ground talking about McGovern. I also thought the film did a good job a depicting how difficult it was to try and get the story printed, no one wanted to talk, they needed more sources, and those who talked wouldn&amp;#039;t go on record.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The newsroom scenes are very well done, as is the interaction among the editors, and between the editors and the reporters.  (Personal experience talking here.)  The scene in the Library of Congress shows the tedium of reporting as Woodward and Bernstein wade through all those cards.  Then the camera pulls back and these main characters become non-entities, just two little guys among other little guys.  But in true Hollywood-history tradition, they bring down the Big Guys--although we know the real empire-toppling was done in the judicial arena.  ---- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal.  Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble.  The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal.  The level of investigating was well done.  It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department.  Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation.  –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen&amp;#039;s story at a McDonald&amp;#039;s, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald&amp;#039;s Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s growing sense of paranoia, of something happening in the shadows, reflects how people felt after Nixon resigned.  The music, lighting and camera work all contributed to this feeling by building an ominous atmosphere.  There was the shadowy underground garage, the eerie light on Deep Throat&amp;#039;s eyes, the car squealing out of the garage, and the tourist (?) pointing his camera at Bernstein and his FBI contact. All this was undoubtedly intended to create drama in a talk-heavy, zero-action movie, but it also mirrors the mood of the country at that time.  --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==&lt;br /&gt;
Robert Toplin talks in his book, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films &amp;quot;speak to the present.&amp;quot; The movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch&amp;#039;s involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ride With the Devil.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film format was similar to the film formats that Frank Capra directed in the 1930&amp;#039;s and 1940&amp;#039;s. In the last few reels of &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men, it seemed that Woodward and Bernstein were defeated by Nixon and his corrupt, government officials. However, in the final moments of the film, both the president and his staff were finally brought down. (Toplin,32) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16).  The clearly defined &amp;quot;Davids&amp;quot; Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several &amp;quot;Goliaths&amp;quot;: their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance.  However, there was a developing relationship.  The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team.  Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people.  This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-12-02T02:04:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess.  Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen.  The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters.  It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved.  The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling.  This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked.  They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those.  Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open.  Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward&amp;#039;s contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; actually appeared in the film and wasn&amp;#039;t just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; was. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the &amp;quot;burglery&amp;quot;.  - LeAnn T.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of &amp;quot;slush funds.&amp;quot; Correct terms were also used, like &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Deep throat.&amp;quot; Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting &amp;quot;four more years&amp;quot; at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the film was able to include things that were not important to Watergate, with the radios on in the back ground talking about McGovern. I also thought the film did a good job a depicting how difficult it was to try and get the story printed, no one wanted to talk, they needed more sources, and those who talked wouldn&amp;#039;t go on record.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The newsroom scenes are very well done, as is the interaction among the editors, and between the editors and the reporters.  (Personal experience talking here.)  The scene in the Library of Congress shows the tedium of reporting as Woodward and Bernstein wade through all those cards.  Then the camera pulls back and these main characters become non-entities, just two little guys among other little guys.  But in true Hollywood-history tradition, they bring down the Big Guys--although we know the real empire-toppling was done in the judicial arena.  ---- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal.  Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble.  The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal.  The level of investigating was well done.  It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department.  Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation.  –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen&amp;#039;s story at a McDonald&amp;#039;s, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald&amp;#039;s Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s growing sense of paranoia, of something happening in the shadows, reflects how people felt after Nixon resigned.  The music, lighting and camera work all contributed to this feeling by building an ominous atmosphere.  There was the shadowy underground garage, the eerie light on Deep Throat&amp;#039;s eyes, the car squealing out of the garage, and the tourist (?) pointing his camera at Bernstein and his FBI contact. All this was undoubtedly intended to create drama in a talk-heavy, zero-action movie, but it also mirrors the mood of the country at that time.  --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==&lt;br /&gt;
Robert Toplin talks in his book, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films &amp;quot;speak to the present.&amp;quot; The movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch&amp;#039;s involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ride With the Devil.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film format was similar to the film formats that Frank Capra directed in the 1930&amp;#039;s and 1940&amp;#039;s. In the last few reels of &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men, it seemed that Woodward and Bernstein were defeated by Nixon and his corrupt, government officials. However, in the final moments of the film, both the president and his staff were finally brought down. (Toplin,32) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16).  The clearly defined &amp;quot;Davids&amp;quot; Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several &amp;quot;Goliaths&amp;quot;: their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance.  However, there was a developing relationship.  The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team.  Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people.  This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-12-01T19:19:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Questions asked in class */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess.  Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen.  The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters.  It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved.  The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling.  This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked.  They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those.  Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open.  Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward&amp;#039;s contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; actually appeared in the film and wasn&amp;#039;t just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who &amp;quot;Deep Throat&amp;quot; was. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the &amp;quot;burglery&amp;quot;.  - LeAnn T.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of &amp;quot;slush funds.&amp;quot; Correct terms were also used, like &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Deep throat.&amp;quot; Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting &amp;quot;four more years&amp;quot; at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen&amp;#039;s story at a McDonald&amp;#039;s, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald&amp;#039;s Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==&lt;br /&gt;
Robert Toplin talks in his book, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films &amp;quot;speak to the present.&amp;quot; The movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch&amp;#039;s involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ride With the Devil.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film format was similar to the film formats that Frank Capra directed in the 1930&amp;#039;s and 1940&amp;#039;s. In the last few reels of &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men, it seemed that Woodward and Bernstein were defeated by Nixon and his corrupt, government officials. However, in the final moments of the film, both the president and his staff were finally brought down. (Toplin,32) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-17T20:47:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans&amp;#039; hospital conditions were deplorable.  The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets.  It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home.  Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets.  Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home.  Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war.  The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family.  They both needed to learn how to live with each other again.  The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother.  I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences.  This was a shame.  Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II.  This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson&amp;#039;s parents that no one talked to new guys much.  That isn&amp;#039;t to say there wasn&amp;#039;t camaraderie, but many men would rather see a &amp;quot;stranger&amp;quot; than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in &amp;quot;The Things They Carried&amp;quot;). --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and &amp;quot;survivor guilt.&amp;quot; The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him.  - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers&amp;#039; return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn&amp;#039;t the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn&amp;#039;t talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were &amp;quot;at a car wash.&amp;quot; The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans.  From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn&amp;#039;t help the veterans&amp;#039; assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man&amp;#039;s war. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron&amp;#039;s friends claim that he wants to &amp;quot;do something with his life,&amp;quot; meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war.  Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits.  I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care.  For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim.  The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ron&amp;#039;s visit to Wilson&amp;#039;s family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film&amp;#039;s version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron&amp;#039;s unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot;  He said &amp;quot;...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war.&amp;quot;  We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron&amp;#039;s parade).  They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war.  No one understood them like they understood each other.  We saw this same phenomenon in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives,&amp;quot; when the men wanted each others&amp;#039; company more than they wanted to be with their families.  Their notion of family had changed, in a way.  Ron is certainly aliented from his family.  His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;asked&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; him about his experiences.  He had no one to talk to.  His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch &amp;quot;Rowan &amp;amp; Martin&amp;#039;s Laugh-In.&amp;quot;  --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;,the author says that men went overseas &amp;quot;full of illusions.&amp;quot; He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech &amp;quot;Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.&amp;quot; The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. When the Marines came to Ron&amp;#039;s school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends&amp;#039; fathers&amp;#039; experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Rumors of War,&amp;quot; Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, &amp;quot;they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips.&amp;quot; In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he &amp;quot;could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line&amp;quot; or even how he couldn&amp;#039;t walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn&amp;#039;t finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home.  He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.”  I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory.  They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-17T20:41:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans&amp;#039; hospital conditions were deplorable.  The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets.  It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home.  Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets.  Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home.  Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war.  The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family.  They both needed to learn how to live with each other again.  The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother.  I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences.  This was a shame.  Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II.  This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson&amp;#039;s parents that no one talked to new guys much.  That isn&amp;#039;t to say there wasn&amp;#039;t camaraderie, but many men would rather see a &amp;quot;stranger&amp;quot; than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in &amp;quot;The Things They Carried&amp;quot;). --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and &amp;quot;survivor guilt.&amp;quot; The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him.  - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers&amp;#039; return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn&amp;#039;t the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn&amp;#039;t talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were &amp;quot;at a car wash.&amp;quot; The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans.  From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn&amp;#039;t help the veterans&amp;#039; assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man&amp;#039;s war. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron&amp;#039;s friends claim that he wants to &amp;quot;do something with his life,&amp;quot; meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ron&amp;#039;s visit to Wilson&amp;#039;s family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film&amp;#039;s version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron&amp;#039;s unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot;  He said &amp;quot;...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war.&amp;quot;  We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron&amp;#039;s parade).  They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war.  No one understood them like they understood each other.  We saw this same phenomenon in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives,&amp;quot; when the men wanted each others&amp;#039; company more than they wanted to be with their families.  Their notion of family had changed, in a way.  Ron is certainly aliented from his family.  His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;asked&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; him about his experiences.  He had no one to talk to.  His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch &amp;quot;Rowan &amp;amp; Martin&amp;#039;s Laugh-In.&amp;quot;  --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;,the author says that men went overseas &amp;quot;full of illusions.&amp;quot; He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech &amp;quot;Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.&amp;quot; The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. When the Marines came to Ron&amp;#039;s school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends&amp;#039; fathers&amp;#039; experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Rumors of War,&amp;quot; Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, &amp;quot;they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips.&amp;quot; In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he &amp;quot;could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line&amp;quot; or even how he couldn&amp;#039;t walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn&amp;#039;t finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home.  He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.”  I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory.  They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-17T20:38:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans&amp;#039; hospital conditions were deplorable.  The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets.  It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home.  Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets.  Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home.  Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war.  The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family.  They both needed to learn how to live with each other again.  The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother.  I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences.  This was a shame.  Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II.  This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson&amp;#039;s parents that no one talked to new guys much.  That isn&amp;#039;t to say there wasn&amp;#039;t camaraderie, but many men would rather see a &amp;quot;stranger&amp;quot; than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in &amp;quot;The Things They Carried&amp;quot;). --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and &amp;quot;survivor guilt.&amp;quot; The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him.  - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers&amp;#039; return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn&amp;#039;t the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn&amp;#039;t talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were &amp;quot;at a car wash.&amp;quot; The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans.  From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn&amp;#039;t help the veterans&amp;#039; assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man&amp;#039;s war. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron&amp;#039;s friends claim that he wants to &amp;quot;do something with his life,&amp;quot; meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ron&amp;#039;s visit to Wilson&amp;#039;s family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film&amp;#039;s version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron&amp;#039;s unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to &amp;quot;the world.&amp;quot;  He said &amp;quot;...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war.&amp;quot;  We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron&amp;#039;s parade).  They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war.  No one understood them like they understood each other.  We saw this same phenomenon in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives,&amp;quot; when the men wanted each others&amp;#039; company more than they wanted to be with their families.  Their notion of family had changed, in a way.  Ron is certainly aliented from his family.  His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;asked&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; him about his experiences.  He had no one to talk to.  His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch &amp;quot;Rowan &amp;amp; Martin&amp;#039;s Laugh-In.&amp;quot;  --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;,the author says that men went overseas &amp;quot;full of illusions.&amp;quot; He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech &amp;quot;Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.&amp;quot; The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. When the Marines came to Ron&amp;#039;s school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends&amp;#039; fathers&amp;#039; experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Rumors of War,&amp;quot; Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, &amp;quot;they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips.&amp;quot; In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he &amp;quot;could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line&amp;quot; or even how he couldn&amp;#039;t walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn&amp;#039;t finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home.  He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.”  I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory.  They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-10T19:19:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South.  It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice.  The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants.  This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children.  How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue.  But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park.  The bus obviously had segregated sections.  In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section.  The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.).  Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed.  They either had a job, or they worked in the home.  If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework.  Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals.  This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’  However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said &amp;quot;he needed to leave before he was lynched,&amp;quot; the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his &amp;quot;citizens council&amp;quot; and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson&amp;#039;s and the Cotters as totally seperate.  Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers.  This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate.  Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent.  I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws.  Mr. Thomas&amp;#039; comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights.  These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions.  They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas.  It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights.  As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools.  Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus.  This was a major part of the film.  The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott.  At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.”  In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied.  And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.”  This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along.  Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her.  She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him.  Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested.  This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr.  Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility.  The narrator is a white woman (the grownup Mary Catherine), and it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history.  But John Cork, the screenwriter, didn&amp;#039;t allow that to  happen.  Neither white nor black are romanticized or demonized. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white&amp;#039;s off? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-10T19:12:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South.  It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice.  The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants.  This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children.  How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue.  But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park.  The bus obviously had segregated sections.  In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section.  The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.).  Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed.  They either had a job, or they worked in the home.  If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework.  Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals.  This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’  However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said &amp;quot;he needed to leave before he was lynched,&amp;quot; the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his &amp;quot;citizens council&amp;quot; and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws.  Mr. Thomas&amp;#039; comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights.  These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions.  They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas.  It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights.  As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools.  Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus.  This was a major part of the film.  The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott.  At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.”  In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied.  And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.”  This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along.  Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her.  She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him.  Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested.  This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr.  Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility.  The narrator is a white woman (the grownup Mary Catherine), and it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history.  But John Cork, the screenwriter, didn&amp;#039;t allow that to  happen.  Neither white nor black are romanticized or demonized. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white&amp;#039;s off? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-10T18:48:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Questions asked in class */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South.  It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice.  The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants.  This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children.  How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue.  But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park.  The bus obviously had segregated sections.  In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section.  The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.).  Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed.  They either had a job, or they worked in the home.  If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework.  Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals.  This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’  However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said &amp;quot;he needed to leave before he was lynched,&amp;quot; the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his &amp;quot;citizens council&amp;quot; and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws.  Mr. Thomas&amp;#039; comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights.  These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions.  They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas.  It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights.  As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools.  Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus.  This was a major part of the film.  The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott.  At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.”  In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg&amp;#039;s character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr.  Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility.  The narrator is a white woman (the grownup Mary Catherine), and it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history.  But John Cork, the screenwriter, didn&amp;#039;t allow that to  happen.  Neither white nor black are romanticized or demonized. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white&amp;#039;s off? -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions"/>
				<updated>2010-11-06T14:12:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others&amp;#039; questions as appropriate).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==&lt;br /&gt;
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran&amp;#039;s homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the &amp;#039;50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don&amp;#039;t think they would have included a main character that didn&amp;#039;t have hands. He would probably either have a limp or &amp;quot;shell shock&amp;quot;, I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn&amp;#039;t know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn&amp;#039;t influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If it was made in the 1950s, the movie would not have been as concerned with the economy. In 1946, many people thought the United States could go into another great depression. And I agree, it would have been more happy and exciting that the soldiers returned home.  -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above comments about how the economic situation would not have looked so grim if the film was made in the 1950s. I also feel that the talks about Nuclear war and the Soviets would have been more prevalent because the 1950s was all about stopping Communism and in 1949 the USSR tested their first Nuclear Weapon and the fears that the test caused, I feel, would have been hinted at more.-Rachael A.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about the movie&amp;#039;s title took me in two different directions.  First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world.  In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones.  It also occured to me that the movie&amp;#039;s title means different things to different characters.  People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, &amp;quot;the best years of my life.&amp;quot;  The character who actually says the line is Fred&amp;#039;s glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him.  For her, that&amp;#039;s probably true.  Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter.  He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror.  Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family.  In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter.  He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands.  But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true.  Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her.  No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred&amp;#039;s wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can&amp;#039;t wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn&amp;#039;t until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it&amp;#039;s clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations.  They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives.  Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years?  But as Fred says, you can&amp;#039;t go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the &amp;quot;best years of their life&amp;quot;. Fred&amp;#039;s wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn&amp;#039;t fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title has many different meanings to the audience and the characters within the movie. When I told most people that I was going to watch a movie called &amp;quot;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; they thought I was talking about a really happy movie. The three veterans thought that the best years of their lives were after the war, but then they realized that it was hard to readjust into civilian life. I think the only person who says &amp;quot;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; is Marie (Fred&amp;#039;s wife).I am a little unsure what she meant, but I think the best years for her were when Frank was gone away at war. It seemed like she was happy bragging to her friends that she has a husband fighting in the war, but she did not want to face realities of him being a civilian when he came home. At some points of the movie, I think that maybe the best years were before the war. Maybe they did not understand how much war would change them forever, and they wished it never happened. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title &amp;quot;The Best Years of our lives&amp;quot; is definitely an ironic movie title.  The three men come home and they talk about their best years either being during the war or before the war when everything sseemed to be easier.  Each character is dreading the return to civilization in their own way and each has different circumstances to react to when they come back.  They struggle throughout the movie to block out memories of the war, and in Homer&amp;#039;s case, he has to physically deal with the war every day.  The title would be straightforward if it was &amp;quot;The Worst Years of our Lives,&amp;quot; but it instead represents the irony of returning from war in not always pleasant circumstances. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al&amp;#039;s wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn about the domestic stereotypes (Millie and Peggy), but at least they weren&amp;#039;t sickly sweet, which could have been easy to do. Millie didn&amp;#039;t exactly seem cheery all the time, nor did she seem resentful for having to carrying out her domestic responsibilities. She played her part, but she didn&amp;#039;t pretend that she absolutely loved doing it. Peggy seemed a little too chirpy to be realistic initially, but she had a darker side to her, too. Not many women in movies from the 1940s seriously declare that they&amp;#039;re going to break up a marriage. She seemed fairly independent, not just a doting daughter and sister. I didn&amp;#039;t like Marie, but I liked that she was not a domestic goddess. She was pissed that she had to quit her job when Fred came home, and she was kind of slutty. A good role model? No. An annoying character? Yes. But it was a little refreshing to see someone like Marie in a movie from 1946, especially when everyone else is more or less noble. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife played-they represented progressive women and also the &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another.  I loved that about this movie.  Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman.  Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond.  Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom.  They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away.  When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine.  Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men.  Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends.  Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship.  She is all about parties, money, and appearances.  She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes!  And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband.  Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that &amp;quot;sweet&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;innocent&amp;quot; girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage. I don&amp;#039;t know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it&amp;#039;s not always easy. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred&amp;#039;s wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife were strong characters. I think if this was made in the 1950s, their characters would not have been as strong because of the shift of working roles. Maybe in 1946 most women still had their jobs that they had during the war. But it probably gradually shifted to the men taking back their jobs. Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife are my favorite characters. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==&lt;br /&gt;
I believe it is optimistic about the US future.  Fred does get a job; moreover, it&amp;#039;s a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy.  Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I&amp;#039;m thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled.  More personally, there is Al&amp;#039;s drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren&amp;#039;t dealt with.  And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he&amp;#039;ll let her keep her job).  Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding.  That&amp;#039;s a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really &amp;quot;gambling on the future of this country&amp;quot; by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, &amp;quot;this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help.&amp;quot;(I don&amp;#039;t know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic.  The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds.  It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members.  Never once in my husband&amp;#039;s 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot.  I&amp;#039;m sure the other services are similar.  What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve.  Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory.  The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog.  America will survive because the military made these men and won&amp;#039;t let them down.  They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the ending of the film leaves the viewer with a mostly optimistic view of a post-WWII world. The marriage of Homer and Wilma really signified that for me, it showed that people were beginning to overcome the hardships that the war had caused, with Wilma telling Homer that no matter what she still loved him. The same with Peggy and Fred, it seemed that they were going to try and take the next steps in a relationship. And with Al and Milly being able to rekindle their romance and support of each other. All three of the relationships symbolized getting past the war and trying to live normal lives.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie has both elements of pessimism and optimism represented.  For most of the movie, pessimism is prevalent in each character&amp;#039;s lives.  Homer has to deal with having no arms and a family that struggles to deal with this concept, Al seems to have the perfect life at home but it is this perfection he struggles with, and Fred struggles to find a proper family.  Everyone deals with pessimism but in the end, I think the movie is overall optimistic.  Homer gets married, Fred gets a divorce from his superficial wife and finds Al&amp;#039;s daughter and Al realizes what he had in his family.  I think the movie shows that no matter how the atrocities of war may affect a soldier, they can adapt again in society with a good family and positive influences around them. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer&amp;#039;s disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred&amp;#039;s PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions"/>
				<updated>2010-11-06T14:08:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* How is the movie title subtly ironic? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others&amp;#039; questions as appropriate).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==&lt;br /&gt;
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran&amp;#039;s homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the &amp;#039;50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don&amp;#039;t think they would have included a main character that didn&amp;#039;t have hands. He would probably either have a limp or &amp;quot;shell shock&amp;quot;, I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn&amp;#039;t know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn&amp;#039;t influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If it was made in the 1950s, the movie would not have been as concerned with the economy. In 1946, many people thought the United States could go into another great depression. And I agree, it would have been more happy and exciting that the soldiers returned home.  -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above comments about how the economic situation would not have looked so grim if the film was made in the 1950s. I also feel that the talks about Nuclear war and the Soviets would have been more prevalent because the 1950s was all about stopping Communism and in 1949 the USSR tested their first Nuclear Weapon and the fears that the test caused, I feel, would have been hinted at more.-Rachael A.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about the movie&amp;#039;s title took me in two different directions.  First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world.  In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones.  It also occured to me that the movie&amp;#039;s title means different things to different characters.  People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, &amp;quot;the best years of my life.&amp;quot;  The character who actually says the line is Fred&amp;#039;s glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him.  For her, that&amp;#039;s probably true.  Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter.  He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror.  Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family.  In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter.  He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands.  But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true.  Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her.  No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred&amp;#039;s wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can&amp;#039;t wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn&amp;#039;t until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it&amp;#039;s clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations.  They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives.  Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years?  But as Fred says, you can&amp;#039;t go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the &amp;quot;best years of their life&amp;quot;. Fred&amp;#039;s wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn&amp;#039;t fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title has many different meanings to the audience and the characters within the movie. When I told most people that I was going to watch a movie called &amp;quot;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; they thought I was talking about a really happy movie. The three veterans thought that the best years of their lives were after the war, but then they realized that it was hard to readjust into civilian life. I think the only person who says &amp;quot;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; is Marie (Fred&amp;#039;s wife).I am a little unsure what she meant, but I think the best years for her were when Frank was gone away at war. It seemed like she was happy bragging to her friends that she has a husband fighting in the war, but she did not want to face realities of him being a civilian when he came home. At some points of the movie, I think that maybe the best years were before the war. Maybe they did not understand how much war would change them forever, and they wished it never happened. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The title &amp;quot;The Best Years of our lives&amp;quot; is definitely an ironic movie title.  The three men come home and they talk about their best years either being during the war or before the war when everything sseemed to be easier.  Each character is dreading the return to civilization in their own way and each has different circumstances to react to when they come back.  They struggle throughout the movie to block out memories of the war, and in Homer&amp;#039;s case, he has to physically deal with the war every day.  The title would be straightforward if it was &amp;quot;The Worst Years of our Lives,&amp;quot; but it instead represents the irony of returning from war in not always pleasant circumstances. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al&amp;#039;s wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn about the domestic stereotypes (Millie and Peggy), but at least they weren&amp;#039;t sickly sweet, which could have been easy to do. Millie didn&amp;#039;t exactly seem cheery all the time, nor did she seem resentful for having to carrying out her domestic responsibilities. She played her part, but she didn&amp;#039;t pretend that she absolutely loved doing it. Peggy seemed a little too chirpy to be realistic initially, but she had a darker side to her, too. Not many women in movies from the 1940s seriously declare that they&amp;#039;re going to break up a marriage. She seemed fairly independent, not just a doting daughter and sister. I didn&amp;#039;t like Marie, but I liked that she was not a domestic goddess. She was pissed that she had to quit her job when Fred came home, and she was kind of slutty. A good role model? No. An annoying character? Yes. But it was a little refreshing to see someone like Marie in a movie from 1946, especially when everyone else is more or less noble. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife played-they represented progressive women and also the &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another.  I loved that about this movie.  Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman.  Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond.  Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom.  They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away.  When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine.  Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men.  Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends.  Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship.  She is all about parties, money, and appearances.  She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes!  And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband.  Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that &amp;quot;sweet&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;innocent&amp;quot; girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage. I don&amp;#039;t know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it&amp;#039;s not always easy. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred&amp;#039;s wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife were strong characters. I think if this was made in the 1950s, their characters would not have been as strong because of the shift of working roles. Maybe in 1946 most women still had their jobs that they had during the war. But it probably gradually shifted to the men taking back their jobs. Peggy and Al&amp;#039;s wife are my favorite characters. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==&lt;br /&gt;
I believe it is optimistic about the US future.  Fred does get a job; moreover, it&amp;#039;s a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy.  Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I&amp;#039;m thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled.  More personally, there is Al&amp;#039;s drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren&amp;#039;t dealt with.  And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he&amp;#039;ll let her keep her job).  Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding.  That&amp;#039;s a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really &amp;quot;gambling on the future of this country&amp;quot; by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, &amp;quot;this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help.&amp;quot;(I don&amp;#039;t know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic.  The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds.  It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members.  Never once in my husband&amp;#039;s 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot.  I&amp;#039;m sure the other services are similar.  What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve.  Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory.  The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog.  America will survive because the military made these men and won&amp;#039;t let them down.  They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the ending of the film leaves the viewer with a mostly optimistic view of a post-WWII world. The marriage of Homer and Wilma really signified that for me, it showed that people were beginning to overcome the hardships that the war had caused, with Wilma telling Homer that no matter what she still loved him. The same with Peggy and Fred, it seemed that they were going to try and take the next steps in a relationship. And with Al and Milly being able to rekindle their romance and support of each other. All three of the relationships symbolized getting past the war and trying to live normal lives.-Rachael A.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer&amp;#039;s disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred&amp;#039;s PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-04T04:09:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film&amp;#039;s portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred&amp;#039;s case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al&amp;#039;s daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. &amp;quot;I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker&amp;quot; - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it&amp;#039;s hard to remember that they didn&amp;#039;t necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving.  I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred&amp;#039;s) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who&amp;#039;d been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands.  The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, &amp;quot;Nobody&amp;#039;s job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in.&amp;quot; --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch&amp;#039;s bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen.  In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before.  I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives.  None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments.  He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down.  Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl.  He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war.  His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war.  (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.)   Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability.  It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones.  The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce.  When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan.  Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral.  The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home.  When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I&amp;#039;m reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish&amp;#039;s hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that the movie accurately portrayed was the fact that the soldiers had trouble fitting in again upon their return. Especially when they saw their families had grown to function without them. I think this is especially shown in Al, because he is upset he hasn&amp;#039;t been around to watch his children grow. And because the household has adopted a new lifestyle, especially when he commented on Peggy doing the dishes. He though that the family still had a maid. What I noticed that was also accurate, and this is more so from personal experience, is the fact that Al brought back gifts from his time overseas. With the samurai sword and Japanese flag. Whenever my dad came back from a deployment he always brought us something from where ever he was. And finally, the Stars and Stripes [http://www.stripes.com/] is a real newspaper for the military. They have a European and Pacific version and that is the primary source for keeping up with what is happening on the Home front.- Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that this movie does a great job showing the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life.  As the guys mention on the plane ride home, sometimes returning home after that long is almost scarier than deploying in the first place.  I think I was most impressed by the depiction of Homer&amp;#039;s disability though.  It was always so matter-of-fact, but showed how even once you think you&amp;#039;ve adjusted to something, there&amp;#039;s always still more to be done.  While some people were uncomfortable with Homer&amp;#039;s prostheses, a lot of them, especially Wilma, just wanted to stay around him and get used to it.  The film also showed the misunderstandings that can come from having a visible difference or disability, like when the little kids are actually watching Homer and Wilma because they want to spy on the grown ups who are in looooove, but Homer thinks they&amp;#039;re staring because of his hands.  All in all, it was a very interesting, deep portrayal.  -- P.A. Appel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job of trying to portray soldiers coming back from war from different walks of life.  We had Al, the family man, Fred who was married, but with not much to come back to and an indifferent wife and then Homer, who came back to an un-certain situation at home.  There was also the man who came into the bank and asked for a loan from Al.  I’m sure many of the soldiers took advantage of this bill where the government would match half of what the bank provided.  They all shared their different experiences of war, but not in great detail and I think the movie did a good job of capturing how many soldiers wanted to hide from their war experiences in public but in private they could not avoid them.  Each character was emotionally fragile, but they dealt with it in different ways and ultimately I think each found peace with a woman (except maybe Al’s women was Jackie Daniels). –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940&amp;#039;s if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going along with Mike E&amp;#039;s comment, it seems that Frank&amp;#039;s PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran&amp;#039;s being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s.  I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie but rationing which certainly included nylons did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the &amp;#039;50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can&amp;#039;t remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience&amp;#039;s questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al&amp;#039;s future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film.  I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole.  Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw the &amp;quot;atomic bomb&amp;quot; scene with Al&amp;#039;s son a little differently than Caryn.  It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima.  I&amp;#039;m sure that the bomb was on the boy&amp;#039;s mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t disagree with you on that Debbie, it just seemed clumsy the way it was addressed, in my opinion. I am sure that it was at the forefront of people&amp;#039;s minds especially if it directly effected this family, I just think that it was hastily introduced. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn&amp;#039;t really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf.  I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese.  Similarly, the fact that the word &amp;quot;divorce&amp;quot; is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking.  -- P.A. Appel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, &amp;quot;I wrote home, &amp;#039;The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don&amp;#039;t get out soon, I will be a mental case.&amp;quot; The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies.  The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie.  This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it.  Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live.  He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you.  They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.”  Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The characters&amp;#039; experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell&amp;#039;s experiences.  Specifically, Fussell says he &amp;quot;became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ...&amp;quot; (176).  Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage.  She offers to help him adjust, but he says it&amp;#039;s something he has to do by himself.  I can&amp;#039;t quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families.  Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn&amp;#039;t tell his father what he did in the war.  Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger.  Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Paul Fussell&amp;#039;s account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Chapter six of the readings I found an interesting comparison when Paul Fussell was talking about education in a university after the war.  He says, “What social institutions are the most dramatically opposite to the army? Colleges and universities.”  That is one thing we hardly see in the movie, except for once I believe.  He also mentions how he did not want to return to any conforming group.  Both of these seemed opposite to what the characters in the movie did.  None of them even gave a hint of going to a university and I think they all conformed.  Fred started working at the same drug store he did before the war, Al was working at the bank and Homer, probably because of his handicap, had to stay at home.  This just goes to show that everybody not only has different experiences during the war, but also after and how they choose to return to society. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies.  He also told us that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was the top-grossing movie of 1946.  Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years.  They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it&amp;#039;s important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely think that the movie could serve as a message of hope to veterans and their families who were undergoing similar problems to the characters. Even though there is not such a strong pro-war message, there was a lot of fear about family life and the economy in 1946. Seeing that all three of these men were able to get their lives back on track and overcome the obstacles which they faced would have been inspiring, I think. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Megan that this movie was well received by families undergoing similar problems at the end of the War. Part of the problem was that every person felt that their situation was somehow abnormal and different from what it is supposed to be. With the release of this movie people realized that they weren&amp;#039;t in fact alone. From that they were able to work through their problems and work towards a better life. By not really forgetting the war, but rather accepting that it happened and changed the US. - Jenn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-11-04T04:09:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film&amp;#039;s portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred&amp;#039;s case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al&amp;#039;s daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. &amp;quot;I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker&amp;quot; - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it&amp;#039;s hard to remember that they didn&amp;#039;t necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving.  I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred&amp;#039;s) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who&amp;#039;d been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands.  The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, &amp;quot;Nobody&amp;#039;s job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in.&amp;quot; --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch&amp;#039;s bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen.  In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before.  I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives.  None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments.  He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down.  Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl.  He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war.  His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war.  (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.)   Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability.  It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones.  The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce.  When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan.  Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral.  The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home.  When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I&amp;#039;m reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish&amp;#039;s hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that the movie accurately portrayed was the fact that the soldiers had trouble fitting in again upon their return. Especially when they saw their families had grown to function without them. I think this is especially shown in Al, because he is upset he hasn&amp;#039;t been around to watch his children grow. And because the household has adopted a new lifestyle, especially when he commented on Peggy doing the dishes. He though that the family still had a maid. What I noticed that was also accurate, and this is more so from personal experience, is the fact that Al brought back gifts from his time overseas. With the samurai sword and Japanese flag. Whenever my dad came back from a deployment he always brought us something from where ever he was. And finally, the Stars and Stripes [http://www.stripes.com/] is a real newspaper for the military. They have a European and Pacific version and that is the primary source for keeping up with what is happening on the Home front.- Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that this movie does a great job showing the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life.  As the guys mention on the plane ride home, sometimes returning home after that long is almost scarier than deploying in the first place.  I think I was most impressed by the depiction of Homer&amp;#039;s disability though.  It was always so matter-of-fact, but showed how even once you think you&amp;#039;ve adjusted to something, there&amp;#039;s always still more to be done.  While some people were uncomfortable with Homer&amp;#039;s prostheses, a lot of them, especially Wilma, just wanted to stay around him and get used to it.  The film also showed the misunderstandings that can come from having a visible difference or disability, like when the little kids are actually watching Homer and Wilma because they want to spy on the grown ups who are in looooove, but Homer thinks they&amp;#039;re staring because of his hands.  All in all, it was a very interesting, deep portrayal.  -- P.A. Appel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job of trying to portray soldiers coming back from war from different walks of life.  We had Al, the family man, Fred who was married, but with not much to come back to and an indifferent wife and then Homer, who came back to an un-certain situation at home.  There was also the man who came into the bank and asked for a loan from Al.  I’m sure many of the soldiers took advantage of this bill where the government would match half of what the bank provided.  They all shared their different experiences of war, but not in great detail and I think the movie did a good job of capturing how many soldiers wanted to hide from their war experiences in public but in private they could not avoid them.  Each character was emotionally fragile, but they dealt with it in different ways and ultimately I think each found peace with a woman (except maybe Al’s women was Jackie Daniels). –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940&amp;#039;s if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going along with Mike E&amp;#039;s comment, it seems that Frank&amp;#039;s PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran&amp;#039;s being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s.  I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie but rationing which certainly included nylons did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the &amp;#039;50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can&amp;#039;t remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience&amp;#039;s questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al&amp;#039;s future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film.  I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole.  Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw the &amp;quot;atomic bomb&amp;quot; scene with Al&amp;#039;s son a little differently than Caryn.  It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima.  I&amp;#039;m sure that the bomb was on the boy&amp;#039;s mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t disagree with you on that Debbie, it just seemed clumsy the way it was addressed, in my opinion. I am sure that it was at the forefront of people&amp;#039;s minds especially if it directly effected this family, I just think that it was hastily introduced. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn&amp;#039;t really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf.  I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese.  Similarly, the fact that the word &amp;quot;divorce&amp;quot; is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking.  -- P.A. Appel&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, &amp;quot;I wrote home, &amp;#039;The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don&amp;#039;t get out soon, I will be a mental case.&amp;quot; The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies.  The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie.  This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it.  Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live.  He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you.  They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.”  Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The characters&amp;#039; experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell&amp;#039;s experiences.  Specifically, Fussell says he &amp;quot;became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ...&amp;quot; (176).  Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage.  She offers to help him adjust, but he says it&amp;#039;s something he has to do by himself.  I can&amp;#039;t quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families.  Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn&amp;#039;t tell his father what he did in the war.  Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger.  Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Paul Fussell&amp;#039;s account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies.  He also told us that &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was the top-grossing movie of 1946.  Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years.  They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it&amp;#039;s important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely think that the movie could serve as a message of hope to veterans and their families who were undergoing similar problems to the characters. Even though there is not such a strong pro-war message, there was a lot of fear about family life and the economy in 1946. Seeing that all three of these men were able to get their lives back on track and overcome the obstacles which they faced would have been inspiring, I think. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Megan that this movie was well received by families undergoing similar problems at the end of the War. Part of the problem was that every person felt that their situation was somehow abnormal and different from what it is supposed to be. With the release of this movie people realized that they weren&amp;#039;t in fact alone. From that they were able to work through their problems and work towards a better life. By not really forgetting the war, but rather accepting that it happened and changed the US. - Jenn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-28T02:58:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners&amp;#039; families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say &amp;quot;Remember who you are...&amp;quot; --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner&amp;#039;s families from company houses. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie.  The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians.  Among the women, Hillard&amp;#039;s mother accused the Italian lady of having &amp;quot;the evil eye&amp;quot; and was outraged when she &amp;quot;ruined corn meal&amp;quot; by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;poison&amp;quot; food.  Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to &amp;quot;divide and conquer&amp;quot; the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into &amp;quot;Southern.&amp;quot;  And nobody sounded like a moron.  As a West Virginian, I&amp;#039;m grateful. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers.  Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting).  They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect.  Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town.  I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is.  (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.)  Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film.  Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA?  The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don&amp;#039;t know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company &amp;quot;owned the town&amp;quot;. In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company &amp;quot;provided&amp;quot; the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn&amp;#039;t because it was too expensive.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil&amp;#039;s work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn&amp;#039;t seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W&amp;#039;s comments about Bob Gunton&amp;#039;s character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn&amp;#039;t stop thinking of his character in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Shawshank Redemption&amp;#039;&amp;#039; everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn&amp;#039;t have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge.  - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month&amp;#039;s pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made.  The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company.  They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable.  The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized.  I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the &amp;quot;big&amp;quot; battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn&amp;#039;t completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts&amp;#039; brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners&amp;#039; side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan&amp;#039;s pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny&amp;#039;s father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not really surprised the there wasn&amp;#039;t much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It&amp;#039;s harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe&amp;#039;s ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn&amp;#039;t detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like &amp;quot;Oh my god! He&amp;#039;s being meta!&amp;quot;-Isaac Whaeln&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy  of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams.  http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They&amp;#039;re the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.”  Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners&amp;#039; negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film&amp;#039;s distantly heard, mournful theme.”  John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members.  So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn&amp;#039;t quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it&amp;#039;s rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan&amp;#039;s communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a &amp;quot;true democracy.&amp;quot;-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; My Darling Clementine &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; Matewan &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out.  It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: &amp;quot;Oh, God, for one more breath,&amp;quot; wrote one.  Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners&amp;#039; belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the readings, &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot;, talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are &amp;quot;Beelzebub.&amp;quot; This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were &amp;quot;civilizing and Christianizing&amp;quot; the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that&amp;#039;s a stretch. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie reminded me of &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny&amp;#039;s preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn&amp;#039;t take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn&amp;#039;t directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner&amp;#039;s Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said &amp;quot;it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life,&amp;quot; and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such &amp;quot;joy&amp;quot;. I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - &lt;br /&gt;
LeAnn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-28T02:56:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners&amp;#039; families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say &amp;quot;Remember who you are...&amp;quot; --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner&amp;#039;s families from company houses. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie.  The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians.  Among the women, Hillard&amp;#039;s mother accused the Italian lady of having &amp;quot;the evil eye&amp;quot; and was outraged when she &amp;quot;ruined corn meal&amp;quot; by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;poison&amp;quot; food.  Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to &amp;quot;divide and conquer&amp;quot; the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into &amp;quot;Southern.&amp;quot;  And nobody sounded like a moron.  As a West Virginian, I&amp;#039;m grateful. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers.  Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting).  They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect.  Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town.  I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is.  (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.)  Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film.  Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA?  The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don&amp;#039;t know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company &amp;quot;owned the town&amp;quot;. In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company &amp;quot;provided&amp;quot; the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn&amp;#039;t because it was too expensive.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil&amp;#039;s work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn&amp;#039;t seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W&amp;#039;s comments about Bob Gunton&amp;#039;s character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn&amp;#039;t stop thinking of his character in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Shawshank Redemption&amp;#039;&amp;#039; everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn&amp;#039;t have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge.  - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month&amp;#039;s pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company.  They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable.  The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized.  I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the &amp;quot;big&amp;quot; battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn&amp;#039;t completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts&amp;#039; brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners&amp;#039; side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan&amp;#039;s pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny&amp;#039;s father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not really surprised the there wasn&amp;#039;t much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It&amp;#039;s harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe&amp;#039;s ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn&amp;#039;t detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like &amp;quot;Oh my god! He&amp;#039;s being meta!&amp;quot;-Isaac Whaeln&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy  of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams.  http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They&amp;#039;re the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.”  Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners&amp;#039; negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film&amp;#039;s distantly heard, mournful theme.”  John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members.  So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn&amp;#039;t quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it&amp;#039;s rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan&amp;#039;s communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a &amp;quot;true democracy.&amp;quot;-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; My Darling Clementine &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; Matewan &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out.  It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: &amp;quot;Oh, God, for one more breath,&amp;quot; wrote one.  Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners&amp;#039; belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the readings, &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot;, talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are &amp;quot;Beelzebub.&amp;quot; This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were &amp;quot;civilizing and Christianizing&amp;quot; the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that&amp;#039;s a stretch. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie reminded me of &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny&amp;#039;s preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn&amp;#039;t take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn&amp;#039;t directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner&amp;#039;s Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said &amp;quot;it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life,&amp;quot; and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such &amp;quot;joy&amp;quot;. I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - &lt;br /&gt;
LeAnn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-28T02:56:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners&amp;#039; families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say &amp;quot;Remember who you are...&amp;quot; --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner&amp;#039;s families from company houses. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie.  The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians.  Among the women, Hillard&amp;#039;s mother accused the Italian lady of having &amp;quot;the evil eye&amp;quot; and was outraged when she &amp;quot;ruined corn meal&amp;quot; by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;poison&amp;quot; food.  Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to &amp;quot;divide and conquer&amp;quot; the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into &amp;quot;Southern.&amp;quot;  And nobody sounded like a moron.  As a West Virginian, I&amp;#039;m grateful. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers.  Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting).  They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect.  Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town.  I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is.  (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.)  Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film.  Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA?  The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don&amp;#039;t know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company &amp;quot;owned the town&amp;quot;. In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company &amp;quot;provided&amp;quot; the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn&amp;#039;t because it was too expensive.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil&amp;#039;s work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn&amp;#039;t seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W&amp;#039;s comments about Bob Gunton&amp;#039;s character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn&amp;#039;t stop thinking of his character in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Shawshank Redemption&amp;#039;&amp;#039; everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn&amp;#039;t have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge.  - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month&amp;#039;s pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the &amp;quot;big&amp;quot; battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn&amp;#039;t completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts&amp;#039; brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners&amp;#039; side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan&amp;#039;s pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny&amp;#039;s father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not really surprised the there wasn&amp;#039;t much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It&amp;#039;s harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe&amp;#039;s ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn&amp;#039;t detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like &amp;quot;Oh my god! He&amp;#039;s being meta!&amp;quot;-Isaac Whaeln&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy  of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams.  http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They&amp;#039;re the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.”  Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners&amp;#039; negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film&amp;#039;s distantly heard, mournful theme.”  John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members.  So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn&amp;#039;t quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it&amp;#039;s rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan&amp;#039;s communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a &amp;quot;true democracy.&amp;quot;-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; My Darling Clementine &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;em&amp;gt; Matewan &amp;lt;/em&amp;gt;?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out.  It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: &amp;quot;Oh, God, for one more breath,&amp;quot; wrote one.  Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners&amp;#039; belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the readings, &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot;, talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are &amp;quot;Beelzebub.&amp;quot; This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were &amp;quot;civilizing and Christianizing&amp;quot; the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that&amp;#039;s a stretch. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie reminded me of &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny&amp;#039;s preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn&amp;#039;t take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot;. They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn&amp;#039;t directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner&amp;#039;s Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said &amp;quot;it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life,&amp;quot; and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such &amp;quot;joy&amp;quot;. I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - &lt;br /&gt;
LeAnn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-21T01:47:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone.  It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order.  The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident.  The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority.  No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers.  Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching.  When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality.  It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle.  They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree.  The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble.  In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out.  When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again.  The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers&amp;#039; grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone&amp;#039;s population.  Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral).  The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There wasn&amp;#039;t a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of lawless mining town. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt&amp;#039;s favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt&amp;#039;s earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with &amp;quot;Doc&amp;quot; Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for &amp;quot;Dr. John Holliday.&amp;quot;  She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected.  I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched.  She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there&amp;#039;s no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt&amp;#039;s reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp&amp;#039;s wives. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn&amp;#039;t die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua&amp;#039;s death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists.  Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man.  He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday.  He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death).  I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926!  Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm).  The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html).  In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882.   There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened).  The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes.  Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film.  Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis.  One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict.  And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes.  The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp &amp;quot;legend.&amp;quot;  The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp.  Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience.  The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic.  The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward.  So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate.  You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart&amp;#039;s diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham&amp;#039;s mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Old Man&amp;quot; Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the &amp;quot;Guadalupe Canyon Massacre&amp;quot; in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed.  Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home.  Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton&amp;#039;s home never happened.  I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her.  Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole.  She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west (&amp;quot;from cow town to cow town&amp;quot;) to find the man she loved.  This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm.  Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders.  Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James&amp;#039; grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety.  Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html).  With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos.  Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio).  The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&amp;amp;hid=105&amp;amp;sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&amp;amp;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&amp;amp;AN=29965192). –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Teddy Roosevelt&amp;#039;s comments on &amp;quot;Cowboy-Land&amp;quot; were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity.  One point he makes touches on the movie.  He writes that people &amp;quot;were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man&amp;#039;s past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Major Problems of the American West,&amp;quot; 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble.  They also didn&amp;#039;t object to Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s methods.  Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were &amp;quot;asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them&amp;quot; (204).  We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a &amp;quot;sporting man&amp;quot; to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Writing Women&amp;#039;s Lives,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that &amp;quot;produced enough venom to kill an army.&amp;quot; The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie doesn&amp;#039;t really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp&amp;#039;s cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other&amp;#039;s have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe &amp;quot;semicivilized&amp;quot; (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes&amp;#039; cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd&amp;#039;s diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move.  In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps.  In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians.  Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships.  The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do.  We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone.  I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford loved the West (see &amp;quot;Stagecoach,&amp;quot; for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; the land is not the enemy; we don&amp;#039;t see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell&amp;#039;s diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don&amp;#039;t see the ravages of mining or lumbering.  John Ford&amp;#039;s West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied.  It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-21T01:25:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone.  It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order.  The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident.  The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority.  No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers.  Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching.  When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality.  It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle.  They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree.  The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble.  In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out.  When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again.  The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers&amp;#039; grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone&amp;#039;s population.  Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral).  The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There wasn&amp;#039;t a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of lawless mining town. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt&amp;#039;s favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt&amp;#039;s earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with &amp;quot;Doc&amp;quot; Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for &amp;quot;Dr. John Holliday.&amp;quot;  She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected.  I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched.  She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there&amp;#039;s no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt&amp;#039;s reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp&amp;#039;s wives. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn&amp;#039;t die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua&amp;#039;s death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists.  Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man.  He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday.  He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death).  I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926!  Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm).  The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html).  In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882.   There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened).  The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes.  Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film.  Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis.  One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict.  And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes.  The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp &amp;quot;legend.&amp;quot;  The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp.  Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience.  The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic.  The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward.  So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate.  You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart&amp;#039;s diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham&amp;#039;s mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Old Man&amp;quot; Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the &amp;quot;Guadalupe Canyon Massacre&amp;quot; in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed.  Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home.  Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton&amp;#039;s home never happened.  I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her.  Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole.  She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west (&amp;quot;from cow town to cow town&amp;quot;) to find the man she loved.  This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm.  Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders.  Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James&amp;#039; grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety.  Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html).  With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos.  Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio).  The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&amp;amp;hid=105&amp;amp;sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&amp;amp;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&amp;amp;AN=29965192). –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Teddy Roosevelt&amp;#039;s comments on &amp;quot;Cowboy-Land&amp;quot; were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity.  One point he makes touches on the movie.  He writes that people &amp;quot;were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man&amp;#039;s past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Major Problems of the American West,&amp;quot; 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble.  They also didn&amp;#039;t object to Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s methods.  Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were &amp;quot;asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them&amp;quot; (204).  We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a &amp;quot;sporting man&amp;quot; to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Writing Women&amp;#039;s Lives,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that &amp;quot;produced enough venom to kill an army.&amp;quot; The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie doesn&amp;#039;t really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp&amp;#039;s cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other&amp;#039;s have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe &amp;quot;semicivilized&amp;quot; (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes&amp;#039; cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd&amp;#039;s diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford loved the West (see &amp;quot;Stagecoach,&amp;quot; for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; the land is not the enemy; we don&amp;#039;t see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell&amp;#039;s diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don&amp;#039;t see the ravages of mining or lumbering.  John Ford&amp;#039;s West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied.  It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-21T01:10:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone.  It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order.  The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident.  The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority.  No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers.  Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching.  When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality.  It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle.  They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree.  The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble.  In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out.  When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again.  The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers&amp;#039; grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone&amp;#039;s population.  Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral).  The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There wasn&amp;#039;t a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a &amp;quot;civilized&amp;quot; home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of lawless mining town. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt&amp;#039;s favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt&amp;#039;s earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with &amp;quot;Doc&amp;quot; Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for &amp;quot;Dr. John Holliday.&amp;quot;  She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected.  I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched.  She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there&amp;#039;s no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt&amp;#039;s reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp&amp;#039;s wives. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn&amp;#039;t die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua&amp;#039;s death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists.  Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man.  He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday.  He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death).  I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926!  Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm).  The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html).  In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882.   There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened).  The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes.  Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film.  Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis.  One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict.  And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes.  The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp &amp;quot;legend.&amp;quot;  The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp.  Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience.  The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic.  The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward.  So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate.  You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart&amp;#039;s diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham&amp;#039;s mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Old Man&amp;quot; Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the &amp;quot;Guadalupe Canyon Massacre&amp;quot; in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mike, I did not how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed.  Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home.  I’m not sure if the scene where both Virgil and Billy actually happened and if it did not we can check off another historical inaccuracy.  I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her.  Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole.  She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west (&amp;quot;from cow town to cow town&amp;quot;) to find the man she loved.  This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm.  Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders.  Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James&amp;#039; grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety.  Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html).  With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos.  Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio).  The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&amp;amp;hid=105&amp;amp;sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&amp;amp;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&amp;amp;AN=29965192). –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
Teddy Roosevelt&amp;#039;s comments on &amp;quot;Cowboy-Land&amp;quot; were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity.  One point he makes touches on the movie.  He writes that people &amp;quot;were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man&amp;#039;s past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions&amp;quot; (&amp;quot;Major Problems of the American West,&amp;quot; 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble.  They also didn&amp;#039;t object to Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;s methods.  Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were &amp;quot;asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them&amp;quot; (204).  We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a &amp;quot;sporting man&amp;quot; to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Writing Women&amp;#039;s Lives,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that &amp;quot;produced enough venom to kill an army.&amp;quot; The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie doesn&amp;#039;t really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp&amp;#039;s cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other&amp;#039;s have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe &amp;quot;semicivilized&amp;quot; (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes&amp;#039; cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd&amp;#039;s diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
John Ford loved the West (see &amp;quot;Stagecoach,&amp;quot; for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; the land is not the enemy; we don&amp;#039;t see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell&amp;#039;s diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don&amp;#039;t see the ravages of mining or lumbering.  John Ford&amp;#039;s West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied.  It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-07T04:45:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Questions asked in class */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s unit were accurate.  The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected.  Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted&amp;#039;s competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience.  Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work.  These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of &amp;quot;contraband&amp;quot;. You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can&amp;#039;t lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn&amp;#039;t shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn&amp;#039;t make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn&amp;#039;t find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw&amp;#039;s dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner&amp;#039;s score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn&amp;#039;t making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape.  -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition.  The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army.  When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed.  Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform.  Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out.  They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American.  One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers.  He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests.  What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor.  However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel.  He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha brings up Broderick&amp;#039;s performance.  I think Shaw&amp;#039;s stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel.  He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front.  I&amp;#039;ve seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don&amp;#039;t know what the heck they&amp;#039;re doing.  Broderick conveyed that very well.  He communicated how difficult Shaw&amp;#039;s job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends.  Shaw&amp;#039;s development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; is an outstanding movie.  Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact.  I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; when he said, &amp;quot;...&amp;quot;Glory&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films&amp;#039;s distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans&amp;quot; (203).  Yes, Denzel&amp;#039;s tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted:  the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer.  And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie&amp;#039;s soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It&amp;#039;s obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as &amp;quot;monkeys&amp;quot; useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they&amp;#039;d come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That&amp;#039;s important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners&amp;#039; perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th&amp;#039;s willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment.  Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, &amp;quot;You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds&amp;quot;. When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;d rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog.&amp;quot; - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren&amp;#039;t allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn&amp;#039;t slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, &amp;quot;The rebels see us, miles away.&amp;quot;” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don&amp;#039;t know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn&amp;#039;t necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write.  I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north.  Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden.  Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops.  According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie.  During the scenes the men experienced &amp;quot;liberty&amp;quot; from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of &amp;quot;respectable&amp;quot; women throughout camp.  In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night.  He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there&amp;#039;s no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers&amp;#039; graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw&amp;#039;s character. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film&amp;#039;s 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn&amp;#039;t show Frederick Douglass&amp;#039; sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the &amp;quot;worst solider&amp;quot; and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves.  When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can&amp;#039;t imagine Boston with slaves.  Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this?  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn&amp;#039;t exactly true. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did not show Frederick Douglas&amp;#039;s sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed.  As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities.  That being said, there wasn&amp;#039;t a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th.  None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel&amp;#039;s tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That&amp;#039;s where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh...  ;) -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed that the movie did not address was the inferior care that the black soldiers received during the war.  They received inferior guns as well as medical care even at the end of the war and in the movie there was no indication they had inferior guns and medical care. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of &amp;quot;gentlemanly&amp;quot; fighting occurred.  No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; seems to suggest a deeper question: So we&amp;#039;re free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character says that even if the North wins, it won&amp;#039;t matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn&amp;#039;t deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn&amp;#039;t get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher&amp;#039;s characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so.  Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting &amp;quot;white,&amp;quot; while Braugher just considers himself educated.  Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now.  If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don&amp;#039;t know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly.  He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?”  These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie.  Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip.  He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers.  He protests the unfair pay rate.  When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise.  He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch.  I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding&amp;#039;s letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I&amp;#039;m not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn&amp;#039;t get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachael mentioned the pay issue.  In Susie King Taylor&amp;#039;s journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers&amp;#039; protest against unequal pay (Section III).  She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, &amp;quot;Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers.&amp;quot;  I don&amp;#039;t know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gooding&amp;#039;s account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned.  He does not mention any acts of violence against the town&amp;#039;s women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman.  However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character, and Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Deborah&amp;#039;s point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the readings, especially Gooding&amp;#039;s account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don&amp;#039;t know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn&amp;#039;t know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn&amp;#039;t find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did they say who Frederick Douglass’s sons were? –afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-07T04:43:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s unit were accurate.  The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected.  Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted&amp;#039;s competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience.  Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work.  These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of &amp;quot;contraband&amp;quot;. You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can&amp;#039;t lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn&amp;#039;t shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn&amp;#039;t make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn&amp;#039;t find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw&amp;#039;s dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner&amp;#039;s score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn&amp;#039;t making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape.  -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition.  The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army.  When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed.  Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform.  Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out.  They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American.  One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers.  He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests.  What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor.  However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel.  He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha brings up Broderick&amp;#039;s performance.  I think Shaw&amp;#039;s stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel.  He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front.  I&amp;#039;ve seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don&amp;#039;t know what the heck they&amp;#039;re doing.  Broderick conveyed that very well.  He communicated how difficult Shaw&amp;#039;s job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends.  Shaw&amp;#039;s development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; is an outstanding movie.  Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact.  I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; when he said, &amp;quot;...&amp;quot;Glory&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films&amp;#039;s distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans&amp;quot; (203).  Yes, Denzel&amp;#039;s tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted:  the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer.  And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie&amp;#039;s soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It&amp;#039;s obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as &amp;quot;monkeys&amp;quot; useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they&amp;#039;d come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That&amp;#039;s important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners&amp;#039; perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th&amp;#039;s willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment.  Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, &amp;quot;You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds&amp;quot;. When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;d rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog.&amp;quot; - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren&amp;#039;t allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn&amp;#039;t slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, &amp;quot;The rebels see us, miles away.&amp;quot;” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don&amp;#039;t know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn&amp;#039;t necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write.  I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north.  Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden.  Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops.  According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie.  During the scenes the men experienced &amp;quot;liberty&amp;quot; from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of &amp;quot;respectable&amp;quot; women throughout camp.  In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night.  He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there&amp;#039;s no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers&amp;#039; graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw&amp;#039;s character. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film&amp;#039;s 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn&amp;#039;t show Frederick Douglass&amp;#039; sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the &amp;quot;worst solider&amp;quot; and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves.  When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can&amp;#039;t imagine Boston with slaves.  Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this?  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn&amp;#039;t exactly true. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did not show Frederick Douglas&amp;#039;s sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed.  As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities.  That being said, there wasn&amp;#039;t a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th.  None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel&amp;#039;s tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That&amp;#039;s where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh...  ;) -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed that the movie did not address was the inferior care that the black soldiers received during the war.  They received inferior guns as well as medical care even at the end of the war and in the movie there was no indication they had inferior guns and medical care. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of &amp;quot;gentlemanly&amp;quot; fighting occurred.  No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; seems to suggest a deeper question: So we&amp;#039;re free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character says that even if the North wins, it won&amp;#039;t matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn&amp;#039;t deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn&amp;#039;t get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher&amp;#039;s characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so.  Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting &amp;quot;white,&amp;quot; while Braugher just considers himself educated.  Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now.  If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don&amp;#039;t know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly.  He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?”  These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie.  Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip.  He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers.  He protests the unfair pay rate.  When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise.  He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch.  I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding&amp;#039;s letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I&amp;#039;m not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn&amp;#039;t get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachael mentioned the pay issue.  In Susie King Taylor&amp;#039;s journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers&amp;#039; protest against unequal pay (Section III).  She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, &amp;quot;Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers.&amp;quot;  I don&amp;#039;t know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gooding&amp;#039;s account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned.  He does not mention any acts of violence against the town&amp;#039;s women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman.  However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character, and Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Deborah&amp;#039;s point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the readings, especially Gooding&amp;#039;s account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don&amp;#039;t know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn&amp;#039;t know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn&amp;#039;t find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-10-07T04:43:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got right */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s unit were accurate.  The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected.  Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted&amp;#039;s competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience.  Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work.  These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of &amp;quot;contraband&amp;quot;. You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can&amp;#039;t lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn&amp;#039;t shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn&amp;#039;t make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn&amp;#039;t find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw&amp;#039;s dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner&amp;#039;s score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn&amp;#039;t making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape.  -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition.  The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army.  When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed.  Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform.  Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out.  They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American.  One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers.  He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests.  What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor.  However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel.  He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha brings up Broderick&amp;#039;s performance.  I think Shaw&amp;#039;s stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel.  He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front.  I&amp;#039;ve seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don&amp;#039;t know what the heck they&amp;#039;re doing.  Broderick conveyed that very well.  He communicated how difficult Shaw&amp;#039;s job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends.  Shaw&amp;#039;s development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; is an outstanding movie.  Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact.  I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; when he said, &amp;quot;...&amp;quot;Glory&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films&amp;#039;s distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans&amp;quot; (203).  Yes, Denzel&amp;#039;s tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted:  the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer.  And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie&amp;#039;s soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It&amp;#039;s obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as &amp;quot;monkeys&amp;quot; useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they&amp;#039;d come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That&amp;#039;s important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners&amp;#039; perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th&amp;#039;s willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment.  Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, &amp;quot;You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds&amp;quot;. When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;d rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog.&amp;quot; - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren&amp;#039;t allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn&amp;#039;t slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, &amp;quot;The rebels see us, miles away.&amp;quot;” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don&amp;#039;t know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn&amp;#039;t necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write.  I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north.  Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden.  Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops.  According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie.  During the scenes the men experienced &amp;quot;liberty&amp;quot; from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of &amp;quot;respectable&amp;quot; women throughout camp.  In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night.  He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there&amp;#039;s no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers&amp;#039; graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw&amp;#039;s character. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film&amp;#039;s 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn&amp;#039;t show Frederick Douglass&amp;#039; sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the &amp;quot;worst solider&amp;quot; and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves.  When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can&amp;#039;t imagine Boston with slaves.  Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this?  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn&amp;#039;t exactly true. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It did not show Frederick Douglas&amp;#039;s sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed.  As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities.  That being said, there wasn&amp;#039;t a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th.  None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel&amp;#039;s tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That&amp;#039;s where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh...  ;) -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of &amp;quot;gentlemanly&amp;quot; fighting occurred.  No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Glory&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; seems to suggest a deeper question: So we&amp;#039;re free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character says that even if the North wins, it won&amp;#039;t matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn&amp;#039;t deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn&amp;#039;t get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher&amp;#039;s characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so.  Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting &amp;quot;white,&amp;quot; while Braugher just considers himself educated.  Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now.  If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don&amp;#039;t know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly.  He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?”  These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie.  Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip.  He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers.  He protests the unfair pay rate.  When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise.  He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch.  I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the movie&amp;#039;s portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding&amp;#039;s letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I&amp;#039;m not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn&amp;#039;t get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachael mentioned the pay issue.  In Susie King Taylor&amp;#039;s journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers&amp;#039; protest against unequal pay (Section III).  She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, &amp;quot;Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers.&amp;quot;  I don&amp;#039;t know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gooding&amp;#039;s account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned.  He does not mention any acts of violence against the town&amp;#039;s women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman.  However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character, and Denzel Washington&amp;#039;s character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Deborah&amp;#039;s point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the readings, especially Gooding&amp;#039;s account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw&amp;#039;s body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don&amp;#039;t know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn&amp;#039;t know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn&amp;#039;t find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-30T05:25:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term brought up in class today, &amp;quot;Moonlight and Magnolias&amp;quot; accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett&amp;#039;s behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it&amp;#039;s still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett&amp;#039;s struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Celia&amp;#039;s point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds.  The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles.  The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow&amp;#039;s life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge.  --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the &amp;quot;lovely&amp;quot; Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south&amp;#039;s own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn&amp;#039;t get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman&amp;#039;s Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley&amp;#039;s plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. &lt;br /&gt;
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital.  Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disdain expressed by the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O&amp;#039;Hara that it was their overseer&amp;#039;s child and that he should be fired for having relations with a &amp;quot;white trash girl.&amp;quot; She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles.  Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era.  From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be.  Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate.  The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government.  This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.  The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful.  It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers.  Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill.  Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.  I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy.  She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett.  She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity.  I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie.  I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to &amp;quot;stand alone&amp;quot; when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that&amp;#039;s a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.  Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett&amp;#039;s shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn&amp;#039;t come back). Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn&amp;#039;t have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett&amp;#039;s problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can&amp;#039;t blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn&amp;#039;t know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett&amp;#039;s gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett&amp;#039;s father says in the beginning of the movie that she can&amp;#039;t hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett&amp;#039;s motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular.  The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible.  Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man&amp;#039;s leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.  (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can&amp;#039;t think of another phrase at the moment, so you&amp;#039;ll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn&amp;#039;t intentional!)  -- Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn&amp;#039;t hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m surprised Michael G hasn&amp;#039;t mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) &amp;quot;satisfied&amp;quot; that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could &amp;quot;take Prissy with her&amp;quot; as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he&amp;#039;s out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are &amp;quot;cat calling&amp;quot; her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn&amp;#039;t as disappointed as I thought I&amp;#039;d be. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin&amp;#039; babies because she would probably have had at least one herself.  As we read in &amp;quot;The Trials of a Slave Girl,&amp;quot; and heard in today&amp;#039;s lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters.  As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her:  she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy&amp;#039;s seemingly childless state is suspicious, too.  Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren.  It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master&amp;#039;s death.  Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the &amp;quot;Middle Passage.&amp;quot; That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the &amp;quot;carpetbaggers,&amp;quot; who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara was telling Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses &amp;quot;the soft negro laughter from the porch.&amp;quot; The other is when Gerald O&amp;#039;Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says &amp;quot;you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them.&amp;quot; These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett&amp;#039;s mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with.  As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett&amp;#039;s status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier&amp;#039;s intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn&amp;#039;t get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying.  This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett&amp;#039;s slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Rachael&amp;#039;s point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alex and Rachael&amp;#039;s points, but I also think it&amp;#039;s a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn&amp;#039;t have any children, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett&amp;#039;s slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is &amp;quot;Gone with the Wind.&amp;quot; -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves. They seemed very loyal to the O&amp;#039;Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren&amp;#039;t happy there. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can&amp;#039;t remember his name but the man who married the &amp;quot;white trash&amp;quot; woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term &amp;quot;carpetbagger&amp;quot; would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term &amp;quot;scalawag&amp;quot; would have been.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we&amp;#039;ve noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon&amp;#039;s immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett&amp;#039;s character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900&amp;#039;s about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn&amp;#039;t seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed that the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but did not portray was the true wealth of many in the south.  As I discovered in class, many in the south did not actually have these huge, lavish plantations like Terra and Twelve Oaks in the movie.  Many southerners only had five or so slaves and would actually rent slaves from wealthier plantation owners and in the movie, all we really see are these incredibly wealthy landowners with numerous slaves working.  I believe the movie did this in order to romanticize the old south and give them a lavish and distinguished reputation in order to enhance our opinions of them.  If the movie had presented the lower classes of the south more aggressively, the movie would not of accomplished one of its main goals: romanticizing the old south. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett&amp;#039;s character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mike&amp;#039;s point. Scarlett&amp;#039;s arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can&amp;#039;t be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister&amp;#039;s fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that&amp;#039;s better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family&amp;#039;s home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played &amp;quot;servants.&amp;quot; It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don&amp;#039;t think they would have called them &amp;quot;slaves,&amp;quot; but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of &amp;quot;Gone With The Wind&amp;quot; as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same.  Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time.  For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the &amp;quot;Lost Cause&amp;quot; mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially &amp;quot;pulls herself up by her own bootstraps&amp;quot;. While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it&amp;#039;s far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett&amp;#039;s outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20&amp;#039;s and 30&amp;#039;s were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women. Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
The excerpt we read from &amp;quot;The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas&amp;quot; was fascinating.  Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men&amp;#039;s bitterness (&amp;quot;Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...&amp;quot;, 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren&amp;#039;t about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks.  But Suellen didn&amp;#039;t want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272).  --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her &amp;quot;trash.&amp;quot; She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading &amp;quot;Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863,&amp;quot; there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class.  It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days.  Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in.  The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive.  This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.  It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow.  One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock.  Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping.  I’m not quite sure how accurate that is.  I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is &amp;quot;not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined&amp;quot; as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who &amp;quot;must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living.&amp;quot; That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett&amp;#039;s decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the &amp;quot;Trials of a Slave Girl&amp;quot; reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother &amp;quot;had high words&amp;quot; with him and &amp;quot;told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character.&amp;quot; I don&amp;#039;t think a slave who wasn&amp;#039;t at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mike&amp;#039;s point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn&amp;#039;t even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading &amp;quot;Letters from Slaves&amp;quot; and discussing in class, I don&amp;#039;t think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh.  I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie.  In class, we discussed how southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own.  In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment.  He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.”  Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view.  In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied.  Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery.   Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?  I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor.  –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett&amp;#039;s family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war &amp;quot;well&amp;quot;, but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It&amp;#039;s not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-30T05:24:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term brought up in class today, &amp;quot;Moonlight and Magnolias&amp;quot; accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett&amp;#039;s behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it&amp;#039;s still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett&amp;#039;s struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Celia&amp;#039;s point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds.  The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles.  The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow&amp;#039;s life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge.  --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the &amp;quot;lovely&amp;quot; Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south&amp;#039;s own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn&amp;#039;t get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman&amp;#039;s Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley&amp;#039;s plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. &lt;br /&gt;
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital.  Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The disdain expressed by the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O&amp;#039;Hara that it was their overseer&amp;#039;s child and that he should be fired for having relations with a &amp;quot;white trash girl.&amp;quot; She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles.  Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era.  From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be.  Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate.  The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government.  This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.  The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful.  It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers.  Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill.  Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.  I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy.  She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett.  She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity.  I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie.  I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to &amp;quot;stand alone&amp;quot; when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that&amp;#039;s a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.  Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett&amp;#039;s shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn&amp;#039;t come back). Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn&amp;#039;t have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett&amp;#039;s problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can&amp;#039;t blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn&amp;#039;t know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett&amp;#039;s gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett&amp;#039;s father says in the beginning of the movie that she can&amp;#039;t hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett&amp;#039;s motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household.  - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular.  The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible.  Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man&amp;#039;s leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.  (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can&amp;#039;t think of another phrase at the moment, so you&amp;#039;ll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn&amp;#039;t intentional!)  -- Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn&amp;#039;t hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m surprised Michael G hasn&amp;#039;t mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) &amp;quot;satisfied&amp;quot; that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could &amp;quot;take Prissy with her&amp;quot; as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he&amp;#039;s out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are &amp;quot;cat calling&amp;quot; her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn&amp;#039;t as disappointed as I thought I&amp;#039;d be. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin&amp;#039; babies because she would probably have had at least one herself.  As we read in &amp;quot;The Trials of a Slave Girl,&amp;quot; and heard in today&amp;#039;s lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters.  As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her:  she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy&amp;#039;s seemingly childless state is suspicious, too.  Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren.  It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master&amp;#039;s death.  Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the &amp;quot;Middle Passage.&amp;quot; That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the &amp;quot;carpetbaggers,&amp;quot; who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara was telling Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses &amp;quot;the soft negro laughter from the porch.&amp;quot; The other is when Gerald O&amp;#039;Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says &amp;quot;you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them.&amp;quot; These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett&amp;#039;s mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with.  As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett&amp;#039;s status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier&amp;#039;s intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn&amp;#039;t get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying.  This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett&amp;#039;s slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Rachael&amp;#039;s point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Alex and Rachael&amp;#039;s points, but I also think it&amp;#039;s a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O&amp;#039;Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn&amp;#039;t have any children, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett&amp;#039;s slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is &amp;quot;Gone with the Wind.&amp;quot; -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves. They seemed very loyal to the O&amp;#039;Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren&amp;#039;t happy there. --Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can&amp;#039;t remember his name but the man who married the &amp;quot;white trash&amp;quot; woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term &amp;quot;carpetbagger&amp;quot; would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term &amp;quot;scalawag&amp;quot; would have been.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As we&amp;#039;ve noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon&amp;#039;s immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett&amp;#039;s character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900&amp;#039;s about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn&amp;#039;t seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett&amp;#039;s character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mike&amp;#039;s point. Scarlett&amp;#039;s arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can&amp;#039;t be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister&amp;#039;s fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that&amp;#039;s better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family&amp;#039;s home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played &amp;quot;servants.&amp;quot; It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don&amp;#039;t think they would have called them &amp;quot;slaves,&amp;quot; but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of &amp;quot;Gone With The Wind&amp;quot; as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same.  Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time.  For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the &amp;quot;Lost Cause&amp;quot; mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially &amp;quot;pulls herself up by her own bootstraps&amp;quot;. While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it&amp;#039;s far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett&amp;#039;s outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20&amp;#039;s and 30&amp;#039;s were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women. Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
The excerpt we read from &amp;quot;The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas&amp;quot; was fascinating.  Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men&amp;#039;s bitterness (&amp;quot;Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...&amp;quot;, 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren&amp;#039;t about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks.  But Suellen didn&amp;#039;t want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272).  --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her &amp;quot;trash.&amp;quot; She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading &amp;quot;Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863,&amp;quot; there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class.  It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days.  Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in.  The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive.  This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.  It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow.  One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock.  Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping.  I’m not quite sure how accurate that is.  I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is &amp;quot;not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined&amp;quot; as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who &amp;quot;must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living.&amp;quot; That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett&amp;#039;s decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the &amp;quot;Trials of a Slave Girl&amp;quot; reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother &amp;quot;had high words&amp;quot; with him and &amp;quot;told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character.&amp;quot; I don&amp;#039;t think a slave who wasn&amp;#039;t at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mike&amp;#039;s point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn&amp;#039;t even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading &amp;quot;Letters from Slaves&amp;quot; and discussing in class, I don&amp;#039;t think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh.  I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie.  In class, we discussed how southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own.  In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment.  He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.”  Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view.  In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied.  Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery.   Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?  I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor.  –afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett&amp;#039;s family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war &amp;quot;well&amp;quot;, but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It&amp;#039;s not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-23T02:44:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The producers of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque&amp;#039;s development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, &amp;quot;get free&amp;quot; (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being &amp;quot;black ladinos.&amp;quot; I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed.  Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other&amp;#039;s thought process without knowing it.  For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing.  On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus&amp;#039; life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.)  As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes&amp;#039; traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank.  The movie&amp;#039;s representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Deborah&amp;#039;s point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin&amp;#039;s perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don&amp;#039;t even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don&amp;#039;t, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, &amp;quot;To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people,&amp;quot; referring to southerners. &lt;br /&gt;
- Michael Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa.  They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America.  In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east).  That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took.  The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun.  He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North.  He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session.  The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election.  Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cinque&amp;#039;s story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque&amp;#039;s story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque&amp;#039;s description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it&amp;#039;s accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out &amp;quot;The Emancipator&amp;quot; or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I&amp;#039;m glad they didn&amp;#039;t. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I&amp;#039;m glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can&amp;#039;t understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can&amp;#039;t. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character.  Additionally, I don&amp;#039;t believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be.  The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time.  Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two).  Also, it&amp;#039;s unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars.  Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing.  The court scenes were tedious enough as it was.  &lt;br /&gt;
In our textbook, &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; Robert Brent Toplin talks about how &amp;quot;tainted&amp;quot; the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film&amp;#039;s integrity (69-78). &lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if I would call this &amp;quot;wrong,&amp;quot; but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified.  The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque&amp;#039;s ancestor worship.)  Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he&amp;#039;s the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn&amp;#039;t support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins&amp;#039; believability.--- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American&amp;#039;s view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams&amp;#039; plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American&amp;#039;s view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin&amp;#039;s property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende&amp;#039;s plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In &amp;quot;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;quot; they couldn&amp;#039;t reload under the waterfall, not that Mann&amp;#039;s film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I&amp;#039;m on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque&amp;#039;s teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn&amp;#039;t relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn&amp;#039;t know they had cruise ships in the 1840&amp;#039;s! I also noticed that they left out the &amp;quot;non-human&amp;quot; cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn&amp;#039;t a &amp;quot;glade plug-in&amp;quot; moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves.  I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie.  Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality.  I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie.  Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court.  In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I&amp;#039;m no film buff but I can&amp;#039;t think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren&amp;#039;t ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans &amp;quot;feel bad&amp;quot; for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don&amp;#039;t really agree with such as Spielberg&amp;#039;s final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;s&amp;#039;&amp;#039;producer for, &amp;quot;castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery.&amp;quot; If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Amistad&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of &amp;#039;90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers.  While Yamba&amp;#039;s interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided.  As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education.  Conversion to Christianity was the entire point.  But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can&amp;#039;t show it that way in the movies we make.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn&amp;#039;t mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer.  Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie.  The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people.  The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen.  Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status.  The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and &amp;quot;astonished&amp;quot; by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cinque&amp;#039;s seizure from his home jibes with Equiano&amp;#039;s description of kidnapping practices in general.  The brief shot of Cinque&amp;#039;s son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving.  The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque&amp;#039;s wife.  For them, as for Equiano&amp;#039;s parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air.  According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan&amp;#039;s account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi&amp;#039;s letter to John Quincy Adams was, &amp;quot;give us free&amp;quot;. Cinque chanted &amp;quot;give us free&amp;quot; in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as &amp;quot;chief&amp;quot; and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn&amp;#039;t a chief. He then went on to call him a &amp;quot;white man,&amp;quot; probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as &amp;quot;brother&amp;quot; and then said that he was a &amp;quot;white man&amp;quot; - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano&amp;#039;s story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it&amp;#039;s quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan&amp;#039;s letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to &amp;quot;Americanize&amp;quot; the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’  Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.”  This was the reality of the slaves&amp;#039; existence.  They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court.  He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie.  After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen.  In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights.  While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism.  Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word &amp;quot;free&amp;quot; in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that &amp;quot;All we want is make us free.&amp;quot; -Meagan P&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly.  Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low.  The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question.  The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is &amp;quot;not a big man, but a lucky one,&amp;quot; in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams.  - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court.  He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart.  And all we have is a rock.”  He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge.  During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved.  Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers.  After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans.  Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque&amp;#039;s denial of leadership, but I don&amp;#039;t agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;humbleness&amp;quot; just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-23T02:21:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The producers of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque&amp;#039;s development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, &amp;quot;get free&amp;quot; (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being &amp;quot;black ladinos.&amp;quot; I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed.  Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other&amp;#039;s thought process without knowing it.  For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing.  On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus&amp;#039; life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.)  As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes&amp;#039; traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank.  The movie&amp;#039;s representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin&amp;#039;s perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don&amp;#039;t even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don&amp;#039;t, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, &amp;quot;To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people,&amp;quot; referring to southerners. &lt;br /&gt;
- Michael Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa.  They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America.  In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east).  That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took.  The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun.  He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North.  He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session.  The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election.  Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cinque&amp;#039;s story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque&amp;#039;s story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque&amp;#039;s description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it&amp;#039;s accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out &amp;quot;The Emancipator&amp;quot; or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I&amp;#039;m glad they didn&amp;#039;t. It rounded out the story well. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character.  Additionally, I don&amp;#039;t believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be.  The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time.  Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two).  Also, it&amp;#039;s unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars.  Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing.  The court scenes were tedious enough as it was.  &lt;br /&gt;
In our textbook, &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; Robert Brent Toplin talks about how &amp;quot;tainted&amp;quot; the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film&amp;#039;s integrity (69-78). &lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if I would call this &amp;quot;wrong,&amp;quot; but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified.  The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque&amp;#039;s ancestor worship.)  Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he&amp;#039;s the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn&amp;#039;t support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins&amp;#039; believability.--- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E.   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American&amp;#039;s view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams&amp;#039; plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American&amp;#039;s view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin&amp;#039;s property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende&amp;#039;s plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In &amp;quot;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;quot; they couldn&amp;#039;t reload under the waterfall, not that Mann&amp;#039;s film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I&amp;#039;m on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque&amp;#039;s teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn&amp;#039;t relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I&amp;#039;m no film buff but I can&amp;#039;t think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren&amp;#039;t ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans &amp;quot;feel bad&amp;quot; for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don&amp;#039;t really agree with such as Spielberg&amp;#039;s final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;s&amp;#039;&amp;#039;producer for, &amp;quot;castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery.&amp;quot; If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;Amistad&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of &amp;#039;90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer.  Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie.  The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people.  The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen.  Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status.  The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and &amp;quot;astonished&amp;quot; by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cinque&amp;#039;s seizure from his home jibes with Equiano&amp;#039;s description of kidnapping practices in general.  The brief shot of Cinque&amp;#039;s son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving.  The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque&amp;#039;s wife.  For them, as for Equiano&amp;#039;s parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air.  According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan&amp;#039;s account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi&amp;#039;s letter to John Quincy Adams was, &amp;quot;give us free&amp;quot;. Cinque chanted &amp;quot;give us free&amp;quot; in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as &amp;quot;chief&amp;quot; and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn&amp;#039;t a chief. He then went on to call him a &amp;quot;white man,&amp;quot; probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as &amp;quot;brother&amp;quot; and then said that he was a &amp;quot;white man&amp;quot; - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano&amp;#039;s story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it&amp;#039;s quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan&amp;#039;s letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to &amp;quot;Americanize&amp;quot; the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’  Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.”  This was the reality of the slaves&amp;#039; existence.  They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court.  He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie.  After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen.  In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights.  While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism.  Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly.  Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low.  The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question.  The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is &amp;quot;not a big man, but a lucky one,&amp;quot; in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams.  - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court.  He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart.  And all we have is a rock.”  He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge.  During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved.  Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers.  After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans.  Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-16T01:38:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things I believe &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, &amp;quot;I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000&amp;quot; showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire.  That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact.  It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service.  First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn&amp;#039;t belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today&amp;#039;s lecture.  I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that&amp;#039;s why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed.  But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old &amp;quot;Wonderful World of Disney&amp;quot; TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes.  &amp;quot;Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time?  And will his brave son Gabriel&amp;#039;s teeth ever turn white again?  Tune in next week for another exciting episode of &amp;#039;The Hatchet Chucker!&amp;#039; &amp;quot;  Of course it wasn&amp;#039;t a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal).  The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things &amp;quot;The Patriot&amp;quot; got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn&amp;#039;t be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week.  I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for &amp;quot;The Cause,&amp;quot; and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It&amp;#039;s difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the &amp;quot;bad guy&amp;quot; basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn&amp;#039;s point about the brutality in the film. The director didn&amp;#039;t seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and  I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man&amp;#039;s cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists.  Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation.  The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war.  As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don&amp;#039;t know about the rest of you, but I don&amp;#039;t like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.”  –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel&amp;#039;s girlfriend did in church?  She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men.  I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn&amp;#039;t have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the &amp;quot;Redcoats&amp;quot; hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three.  -Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn&amp;#039;t explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it&amp;#039;s fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the &amp;quot;good guys&amp;quot;...but really? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna&amp;#039;s point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn&amp;#039;t buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne&amp;#039;s impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn&amp;#039;t have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne&amp;#039;s belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the &amp;quot;good guys,&amp;quot; whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;quot; and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery.  I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner.  The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died.  It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family.  However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&amp;#039;s just say that I don&amp;#039;t believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie.  I&amp;#039;ll move onto the next obvious dramatic license:  &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; ambush.  How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees?  Oh yeah, movie magic, that&amp;#039;s how!  I know it&amp;#039;s impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it&amp;#039;s just that unrealistic.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball?  An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia.  In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true.  They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British.  Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like &amp;quot;The Patriot,&amp;quot; about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself.  For instance, also in theaters that year were &amp;quot;Gladiator,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Erin Brokovich,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Perfect Storm.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;The Patriot&amp;quot; fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America.  That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush...  It&amp;#039;s also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia.  &amp;quot;IN A WORLD&amp;quot; where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s year to support revolutions.  Remember &amp;quot;Chicken Run?&amp;quot; Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a &amp;quot;true American&amp;quot; as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot;, children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;m glad I killed [those men].&amp;quot;). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;The Patriot&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern &amp;quot;Civil War&amp;quot; and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare&amp;quot; reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn&amp;#039;t exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the &amp;quot;description is not equal to their barbarity.&amp;quot; While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as &amp;quot;the good guys&amp;quot; it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don&amp;#039;t know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat.  True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists.  According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists.  The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.”  This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not.  Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often.  In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-16T01:24:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things I believe &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, &amp;quot;I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000&amp;quot; showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire.  That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact.  It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service.  First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn&amp;#039;t belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today&amp;#039;s lecture.  I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that&amp;#039;s why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed.  But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old &amp;quot;Wonderful World of Disney&amp;quot; TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes.  &amp;quot;Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time?  And will his brave son Gabriel&amp;#039;s teeth ever turn white again?  Tune in next week for another exciting episode of &amp;#039;The Hatchet Chucker!&amp;#039; &amp;quot;  Of course it wasn&amp;#039;t a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal).  The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things &amp;quot;The Patriot&amp;quot; got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn&amp;#039;t be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week.  I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for &amp;quot;The Cause,&amp;quot; and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It&amp;#039;s difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the &amp;quot;bad guy&amp;quot; basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with LeAnn&amp;#039;s point about the brutality in the film. The director didn&amp;#039;t seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and  I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man&amp;#039;s cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists.  Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation.  The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war.  As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don&amp;#039;t know about the rest of you, but I don&amp;#039;t like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.”  –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel&amp;#039;s girlfriend did in church?  She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men.  I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn&amp;#039;t have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the &amp;quot;Redcoats&amp;quot; hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three.  -Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn&amp;#039;t explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it&amp;#039;s fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the &amp;quot;good guys&amp;quot;...but really? --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna&amp;#039;s point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn&amp;#039;t buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne&amp;#039;s impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn&amp;#039;t have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne&amp;#039;s belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the &amp;quot;good guys,&amp;quot; whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;quot; and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery.  I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner.  The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died.  It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family.  However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&amp;#039;s just say that I don&amp;#039;t believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie.  I&amp;#039;ll move onto the next obvious dramatic license:  &amp;quot;The Ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; ambush.  How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees?  Oh yeah, movie magic, that&amp;#039;s how!  I know it&amp;#039;s impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it&amp;#039;s just that unrealistic.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball?  An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia.  In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true.  They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British.  Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like &amp;quot;The Patriot,&amp;quot; about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself.  For instance, also in theaters that year were &amp;quot;Gladiator,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Erin Brokovich,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Perfect Storm.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;The Patriot&amp;quot; fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America.  That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush...  It&amp;#039;s also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia.  &amp;quot;IN A WORLD&amp;quot; where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s year to support revolutions.  Remember &amp;quot;Chicken Run?&amp;quot; Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a &amp;quot;true American&amp;quot; as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot;, children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;m glad I killed [those men].&amp;quot;). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;The Patriot&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern &amp;quot;Civil War&amp;quot; and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare&amp;quot; reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn&amp;#039;t exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the &amp;quot;description is not equal to their barbarity.&amp;quot; While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as &amp;quot;the good guys&amp;quot; it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don&amp;#039;t know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat.  True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-09T01:55:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Questions asked in class */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye&amp;#039;s adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading &amp;quot;A Captivity Narrative&amp;quot; it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native&amp;#039;s life as a better life than the colonists&amp;#039; lives. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read &amp;quot;In a World of Warfare&amp;quot; that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127).  --Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred.  An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man.  The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the &amp;quot;death of the innocents&amp;quot; Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film&amp;#039;s depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna&amp;#039;s account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Justine&amp;#039;s comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister&amp;#039;s are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic.  No one is perfect, in one direction or another.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye&amp;#039;s amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro&amp;#039;s heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Massacre at Fort William Henry&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they&amp;#039;d need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie&amp;#039;s defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper&amp;#039;s book. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me it seemed that the movie made at least &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;some&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don&amp;#039;t think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing.  Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better.  One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers.  These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps.  Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun.  He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest.  In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel.  Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the  &amp;quot;bloodthirsty&amp;quot; natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don&amp;#039;t really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the &amp;quot;noble&amp;quot; savage, like Nathaniel&amp;#039;s adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a hard one because I didn&amp;#039;t find any commentary about why they felt the need to do &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.&lt;br /&gt;
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in &amp;#039;90/&amp;#039;91 and this film version came out in &amp;#039;92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;very&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the &amp;#039;90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. &lt;br /&gt;
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of &amp;#039;90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices.  The movie doesn&amp;#039;t go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists.  European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though.  The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians&amp;#039; speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn&amp;#039;t let anything stand in the way of acquiring land.  The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, &amp;quot;...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall&amp;quot; (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In a World of Warfare&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, p. 127). --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.”  According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society.  The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.&lt;br /&gt;
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family.  Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters.  The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death.  Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua.  (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;First Peoples,&amp;quot; there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as &amp;quot;Indianization&amp;quot; (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel&amp;#039;s character. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier.  Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him.  In Calloway&amp;#039;s writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers.  Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was  totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation.  Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family.  Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the &amp;quot;Onandogas and Cayugas&amp;quot; portion of the readings felt.  The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua&amp;#039;s people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*How are the British colonists portrayed?&lt;br /&gt;
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?&lt;br /&gt;
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?&lt;br /&gt;
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone &amp;quot;Grey-hair&amp;quot; and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists.  Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans.  The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless.  Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie.  They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them.  It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.”  &lt;br /&gt;
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority.  When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims.  Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer.  The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies.  They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were &amp;quot;the good guys&amp;quot; who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it.  I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don&amp;#039;t think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English&amp;#039;s and the French&amp;#039;s concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers.  Duncan&amp;#039;s character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview.  To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie.  After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened &amp;quot;over here&amp;quot; will matter at all.  For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream.  Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;war mongers&amp;quot;.  -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans.  The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable.  It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different.  It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another.  Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart.  Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion.  The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over.  However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-09T01:30:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye&amp;#039;s adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading &amp;quot;A Captivity Narrative&amp;quot; it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native&amp;#039;s life as a better life than the colonists&amp;#039; lives. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read &amp;quot;In a World of Warfare&amp;quot; that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127).  --Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred.  An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man.  The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the &amp;quot;death of the innocents&amp;quot; Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film&amp;#039;s depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna&amp;#039;s account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Justine&amp;#039;s comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister&amp;#039;s are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye&amp;#039;s amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro&amp;#039;s heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Massacre at Fort William Henry&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they&amp;#039;d need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie&amp;#039;s defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper&amp;#039;s book. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me it seemed that the movie made at least &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;some&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don&amp;#039;t think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing.  Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better.  One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers.  These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps.  Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun.  He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest.  In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel.  Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a hard one because I didn&amp;#039;t find any commentary about why they felt the need to do &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.&lt;br /&gt;
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in &amp;#039;90/&amp;#039;91 and this film version came out in &amp;#039;92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a &amp;lt;em&amp;gt;very&amp;lt;/em&amp;gt; pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the &amp;#039;90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. &lt;br /&gt;
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of &amp;#039;90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices.  The movie doesn&amp;#039;t go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists.  European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though.  The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians&amp;#039; speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn&amp;#039;t let anything stand in the way of acquiring land.  The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, &amp;quot;...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall&amp;quot; (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In a World of Warfare&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, p. 127). --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.”  According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society.  The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.&lt;br /&gt;
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family.  Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters.  The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death.  Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua.  (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Calloway&amp;#039;s, &amp;quot;First Peoples,&amp;quot; there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as &amp;quot;Indianization&amp;quot; (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel&amp;#039;s character. - Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*How are the British colonists portrayed?&lt;br /&gt;
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?&lt;br /&gt;
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?&lt;br /&gt;
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone &amp;quot;Grey-hair&amp;quot; and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists.  Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans.  The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless.  Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie.  They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them.  It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.”  &lt;br /&gt;
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority.  When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims.  Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer.  The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies.  They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.&lt;br /&gt;
–Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were &amp;quot;the good guys&amp;quot; who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it.  I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don&amp;#039;t think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English&amp;#039;s and the French&amp;#039;s concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers.  Duncan&amp;#039;s character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview.  To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie.  After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened &amp;quot;over here&amp;quot; will matter at all.  For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream.  Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;war mongers&amp;quot;.  -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-02T04:04:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* John Smith (1608) reading */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is a test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, how cool is it that Powhatan&amp;#039;s people had a Universal Translator centuries before &amp;quot;Star Trek&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; Federation invented one?  Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees!  But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can&amp;#039;t expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent.  So it&amp;#039;s interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has.  First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as &amp;quot;but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan&amp;#039;s] Country.&amp;quot;  (&amp;quot;Nonpareil&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;without equal.&amp;quot;) The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too.  Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does.  The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith&amp;#039;s account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin&amp;#039;s point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don&amp;#039;t have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists&amp;#039; view of the Native Americans right - Thomas&amp;#039;s line, &amp;quot;If any Indian tries to stop me, I&amp;#039;ll blast them.&amp;quot; epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith&amp;#039;s line to Pocahontas, &amp;quot;We&amp;#039;ll show your people how to use this land properly,&amp;quot; really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don&amp;#039;t need help from the English &amp;quot;because you don&amp;#039;t know any better&amp;quot;. The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it&amp;#039;s not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children&amp;#039;s move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a &amp;quot;settlement&amp;quot; by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don&amp;#039;t mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn&amp;#039;t seem that way from Smith&amp;#039;s journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it&amp;#039;s what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child.  Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved!  I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership.  The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields:  nice, neat rows, separated by crop.  English?  Yes.  Easier to animate?  Perhaps.  Historically accurate?  Nope.  And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it.  I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat.  There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father&amp;#039;s best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they&amp;#039;re eager to work with him again. I don&amp;#039;t think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of &amp;quot;savages&amp;quot;, even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan&amp;#039;s only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas&amp;#039;s friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can&amp;#039;t. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway.  I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith.  Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog.  Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer.  However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown.  After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps one of the greatest discrepancies that I noticed between the film and Smith&amp;#039;s accounts (as well as our lecture) was the lack of disease plaguing the Jamestown settlers during the film. Whereas in actuality they were camping and building rough houses in a virtual swampland and the majority of  the men died of dysentery and malaria, these conditions were mysteriously absent in the film. Disney has included a lot of clever references in many other films, so I was a little disappointed at how healthy all of the colonists remained, as well as the natives (who should have been getting smallpox). -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Movie as primary source ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s:  it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way.  Yes, it&amp;#039;s Disney, and it&amp;#039;s a cartoon, but it&amp;#039;s aimed at kids, so that makes sense.  There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English.  It&amp;#039;s pretty fake, and it&amp;#039;s pretty cheesy, but it&amp;#039;s representation that is otherwise really hard to come by.  Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney&amp;#039;s ideals at the time.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America&amp;#039;s past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I&amp;#039;m sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can&amp;#039;t be completely without value. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the representation is hard to come by, the film would hardly count as a legitimate primary source. However, as mentioned in class over and over again, films can act as both a primary and secondary source. In this case, we could easily look at Pocahontas and how the film fits as a primary source in regards to the 1990s views of Native Americans. To focus on Disney and its move to represent other ethnicities, Cilla&amp;#039;s right that Disney really opened the floor by expanding the different ethnic groups discussed. Interestingly, there is a reference on the wikipedia article for the film to a native american website (please take with grain of salt), wherein they offered to provide Disney with information to make the film more culturally accurate, but Disney rejected their offer (see: [http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html here]). Perhaps it could make an interesting study in Disney&amp;#039;s continuation of factoring out the native&amp;#039;s opinions? Certainly, a large jump for a conclusion, but the film points to Disney&amp;#039;s ability to take up whatever mythos they want and twist it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments for Pocahontas == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disney&amp;#039;s perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people&amp;#039;s perception of history, especially when asked &amp;quot;Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?&amp;quot; To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas&amp;#039;s age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero.  -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said &amp;quot;eww.&amp;quot; That&amp;#039;s when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not  aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them.  -Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans.  One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith.  Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays  her as an adult.  But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around.  Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney&amp;#039;s part. However, I don&amp;#039;t think we&amp;#039;re giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don&amp;#039;t even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history.  Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that.  However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company.  So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under.  Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version.  Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings.  Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world.  &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English.  It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements.  It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.&lt;br /&gt;
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate.  If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=define%3A+Noble+savage&amp;amp;aq=0&amp;amp;aqi=l1g1&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=noble+savage+def&amp;amp;gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&amp;amp;pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what  outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I&amp;#039;m not arguing its wrong or right I&amp;#039;m looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word &amp;quot;savage.&amp;quot; This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot;, while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While as mentioned by everyone else that &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, &amp;quot;witless peasants to dig up my gold&amp;quot;. He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, &amp;quot;Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth.&amp;quot; The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in &amp;quot;harmony&amp;quot; with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I&amp;#039;ll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan &amp;quot;strongly suggesting&amp;quot; Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn&amp;#039;t true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I&amp;#039;ll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney&amp;#039;s version of Pocahontas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;may&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans&amp;#039; use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it&amp;#039;s important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don&amp;#039;t think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don&amp;#039;t know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn&amp;#039;t completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn&amp;#039;t completely get &amp;#039;&amp;#039;everything&amp;#039;&amp;#039; wrong. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other people have mentioned, Disney&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it&amp;#039;s not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Disney&amp;#039;s movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney&amp;#039;s movie reflects the change that John Smith&amp;#039;s original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith&amp;#039;s account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith&amp;#039;s papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith&amp;#039;s papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==John Smith (1608) reading==&lt;br /&gt;
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I&amp;#039;m inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan&amp;#039;s feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as &amp;quot;Emperor&amp;quot;, which I just thought was interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area.  He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas&amp;#039;s magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of &amp;quot;the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets&amp;quot; with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, &amp;quot;and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing I noticed about Smith&amp;#039;s journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the &amp;quot;readers sake&amp;quot;. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith&amp;#039;s narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith&amp;#039;s account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found John Smith&amp;#039;s papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the &amp;quot;kings&amp;quot; (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith&amp;#039;s account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Smith&amp;#039;s account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes.  Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans.  It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith&amp;#039;s misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout John Smith&amp;#039;s journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other&amp;#039;s true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An extension of Mary Ann&amp;#039;s discussion of language: John Smith writes of his interactions with the Native Americans without the slightest hint of a language barrier. While I do agree that just stating that there was random and ineffective pointing does not make for a riveting journal, one must wonder exactly how these two groups managed to communicate. This question becomes particularly complicated in relation to the deep level of conversation. Case in point, explaining that the earth is round without knowing the word for earth is more than a little difficult. John Smith also manages to demand that the natives send a letter to his camp and also explain the nature of sailing, or even noting that he would be released in four days. I now that the counter will be that perhaps the king raised up four fingers, however don&amp;#039;t be so assured that using your hands to count is in a universal fashion! Or even worse on page ten &amp;quot;I told him being in fight with Spaniards our enemy, being overpowered, near put to retreat, and by extreme weather put to this shore...&amp;quot;These are not trivial or easy subject matters. Say what you will, but language barriers and diplomacy go hand and hand.-Joe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If nothing else, John Smith&amp;#039;s account exemplifies the ambiguous state of relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. It was either tenuous peace or warfare, and Smith shows that by constantly going back and forth in the way he depicts them - one paragraph, the Native Americans are endlessly benevolent and helpful, and in the next there is a brutal fight between the natives and the colonists. It shows the colonists&amp;#039; lives in America as unsettling and volatile - a constantly changing state. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interesting things from this account is Smith’s optimism upon the departure of Captain Newport.  Smith stated that Captain Newport returned to England on June 22nd “leaving provision for 13 or 14 weeks” and that all of his men were “in good health and comfort, albeit, that through some discontented humors…”  We can look back on this now because we know how badly things went for the colonists.  They got short on supplies, relations with the Indians shifted constantly and they could not change their English customs to adapt to the new world.  To me, it was just very curious to look back at these comments, knowing now that high morale and good fortune for the English did not last long. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-09-02T03:37:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Things the movie got wrong */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is a test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got right ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, how cool is it that Powhatan&amp;#039;s people had a Universal Translator centuries before &amp;quot;Star Trek&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; Federation invented one?  Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees!  But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can&amp;#039;t expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent.  So it&amp;#039;s interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has.  First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as &amp;quot;but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan&amp;#039;s] Country.&amp;quot;  (&amp;quot;Nonpareil&amp;quot; means &amp;quot;without equal.&amp;quot;) The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too.  Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does.  The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith&amp;#039;s account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin&amp;#039;s point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don&amp;#039;t have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists&amp;#039; view of the Native Americans right - Thomas&amp;#039;s line, &amp;quot;If any Indian tries to stop me, I&amp;#039;ll blast them.&amp;quot; epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith&amp;#039;s line to Pocahontas, &amp;quot;We&amp;#039;ll show your people how to use this land properly,&amp;quot; really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don&amp;#039;t need help from the English &amp;quot;because you don&amp;#039;t know any better&amp;quot;. The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it&amp;#039;s not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children&amp;#039;s move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a &amp;quot;settlement&amp;quot; by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don&amp;#039;t mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn&amp;#039;t seem that way from Smith&amp;#039;s journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it&amp;#039;s what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child.  Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved!  I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership.  The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields:  nice, neat rows, separated by crop.  English?  Yes.  Easier to animate?  Perhaps.  Historically accurate?  Nope.  And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it.  I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat.  There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father&amp;#039;s best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they&amp;#039;re eager to work with him again. I don&amp;#039;t think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of &amp;quot;savages&amp;quot;, even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan&amp;#039;s only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas&amp;#039;s friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can&amp;#039;t. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway.  I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith.  Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog.  Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer.  However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown.  After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Movie as primary source ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s:  it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way.  Yes, it&amp;#039;s Disney, and it&amp;#039;s a cartoon, but it&amp;#039;s aimed at kids, so that makes sense.  There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English.  It&amp;#039;s pretty fake, and it&amp;#039;s pretty cheesy, but it&amp;#039;s representation that is otherwise really hard to come by.  Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney&amp;#039;s ideals at the time.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America&amp;#039;s past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I&amp;#039;m sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can&amp;#039;t be completely without value. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General comments for Pocahontas == &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disney&amp;#039;s perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people&amp;#039;s perception of history, especially when asked &amp;quot;Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?&amp;quot; To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas&amp;#039;s age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero.  -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said &amp;quot;eww.&amp;quot; That&amp;#039;s when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not  aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them.  -Mike E.&lt;br /&gt;
  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans.  One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith.  Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays  her as an adult.  But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around.  Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney&amp;#039;s part. However, I don&amp;#039;t think we&amp;#039;re giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don&amp;#039;t even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history.  Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that.  However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company.  So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under.  Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version.  Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings.  Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world.  &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English.  It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements.  It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.&lt;br /&gt;
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate.  If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;source=hp&amp;amp;q=define%3A+Noble+savage&amp;amp;aq=0&amp;amp;aqi=l1g1&amp;amp;aql=&amp;amp;oq=noble+savage+def&amp;amp;gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&amp;amp;pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what  outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I&amp;#039;m not arguing its wrong or right I&amp;#039;m looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word &amp;quot;savage.&amp;quot; This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot;, while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While as mentioned by everyone else that &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, &amp;quot;witless peasants to dig up my gold&amp;quot;. He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, &amp;quot;Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth.&amp;quot; The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in &amp;quot;harmony&amp;quot; with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).&lt;br /&gt;
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I&amp;#039;ll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan &amp;quot;strongly suggesting&amp;quot; Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn&amp;#039;t true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I&amp;#039;ll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney&amp;#039;s version of Pocahontas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;may&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans&amp;#039; use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it&amp;#039;s important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don&amp;#039;t think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don&amp;#039;t know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn&amp;#039;t completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn&amp;#039;t completely get &amp;#039;&amp;#039;everything&amp;#039;&amp;#039; wrong. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As other people have mentioned, Disney&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it&amp;#039;s not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although Disney&amp;#039;s movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney&amp;#039;s movie reflects the change that John Smith&amp;#039;s original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith&amp;#039;s account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith&amp;#039;s papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith&amp;#039;s papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==John Smith (1608) reading==&lt;br /&gt;
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I&amp;#039;m inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan&amp;#039;s feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as &amp;quot;Emperor&amp;quot;, which I just thought was interesting.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area.  He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas&amp;#039;s magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of &amp;quot;the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets&amp;quot; with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, &amp;quot;and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first thing I noticed about Smith&amp;#039;s journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the &amp;quot;readers sake&amp;quot;. - Victoria Y.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith&amp;#039;s narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith&amp;#039;s account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found John Smith&amp;#039;s papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the &amp;quot;kings&amp;quot; (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith&amp;#039;s account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Smith&amp;#039;s account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes.  Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans.  It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith&amp;#039;s misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout John Smith&amp;#039;s journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other&amp;#039;s true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-08-26T02:41:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Introduction: Why Movies Matter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s reading here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reel History, Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, &amp;quot; Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind.&amp;quot; (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that both &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed Toplin&amp;#039;s introduction to his ideas in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that &amp;quot;cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events.&amp;quot; I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin argues for &amp;quot;a balanced approach in assessing cinema&amp;#039;s treatments of the past&amp;quot; (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them.  Toplin says, &amp;quot;Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention,&amp;quot; and I think that&amp;#039;s healthy and exciting.  - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature.  It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.  However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people.  Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies.  Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history.  For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties.  However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction.  Two major points stood out for me.  First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history.  Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history:  the dates, the names, the places.  Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history:  the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries.  I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story.  Second was the double standard for historical fiction.  As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy.  That seems unfair.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie.   Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie.  These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom.  There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things.  Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Slaves on Screen==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an &amp;quot;open mind&amp;quot; about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous &amp;quot;notions&amp;quot; about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). &amp;quot;Keeping one&amp;#039;s mind Open,&amp;quot; allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one&amp;#039;s own personal rear view. - Michael E. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beginning pages of &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davis says that historical films &amp;quot;speculate&amp;quot; about the past, and calls the films &amp;quot;thought experiments.&amp;quot; This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools &amp;quot;modes of narration&amp;quot; and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film&amp;#039;s omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the &amp;quot;modes of narration&amp;quot; in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research.  As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected.  We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, &amp;quot;we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete&amp;quot; (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover&amp;#039;s agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry &amp;quot;as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world.&amp;quot; Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover&amp;#039;s agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers &amp;quot;a large group of films that express a similar worldview&amp;quot; (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote &amp;quot;What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are&amp;quot;. This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender  which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today&amp;#039;s movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he&amp;#039;s right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president&amp;#039;s claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don&amp;#039;t think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction&amp;quot; (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: &amp;quot;whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality&amp;quot; (10).  In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine&amp;#039;s discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed.  -Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things that has always intrigued me the most about movies is how different dynamics of people react to a movie.  Everybody reacts differently depending on the color of their skin, their background social status, where they live and many more.   The section on how people react differently to each movie was incredibly interesting and it demonstrated just how drastically people can be affected by what they are seeing on screen.  A very interesting question it poses is, “Did anyone pay attention?”  I think this is not simply a yes or no answer because some people had to pay more attention than others.  For example, FBI director Hoover payed extra attention to movies with a certain theme whereas ordinary citizens would simply analyze say how entertaining it was to watch.  In my mind, the dynamic between the movie and moviegoer is one of the most interesting things about movies. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hollywood&amp;#039;s America==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is seen in &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter,&amp;quot; there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. Early tabloids like &amp;quot;New York World&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;New York Journal&amp;quot; employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas. In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today&amp;#039;s movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by &amp;quot;glamorizing violence&amp;quot; and by &amp;quot;mocking authority.&amp;quot; Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of &amp;quot;violence&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;scandal&amp;quot; to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is &amp;quot;how influential are movies?&amp;quot; So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society.  It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences.  Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”?  &lt;br /&gt;
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones.  Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry.  Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, &amp;quot;The public is never wrong...The public pays money.  It wants to be entertained.  That&amp;#039;s all I know.&amp;quot; (11)  This philosophy still holds true today.  The people with the money have the control.  And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience.  This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees.  All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress.  According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures.  Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment.  This history of Hollywood&amp;#039;s America shows this, and it also shows something more important.  I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things.  We can&amp;#039;t absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical.  As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective.  The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time.  First start with the simple, then move to the complex.  The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just &amp;quot;how influential are movies?&amp;quot; in general but &amp;quot;how influential are movies to the history of America?&amp;quot; If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to the question, &amp;quot;How influential are movies?&amp;quot; I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, &amp;quot;The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these.&amp;quot; I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life.  -- Justine R.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-08-26T02:28:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Reel History, Introduction */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s reading here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reel History, Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, &amp;quot; Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind.&amp;quot; (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that both &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed Toplin&amp;#039;s introduction to his ideas in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that &amp;quot;cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events.&amp;quot; I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin argues for &amp;quot;a balanced approach in assessing cinema&amp;#039;s treatments of the past&amp;quot; (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them.  Toplin says, &amp;quot;Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention,&amp;quot; and I think that&amp;#039;s healthy and exciting.  - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature.  It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.  However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people.  Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies.  Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history.  For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties.  However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction.  Two major points stood out for me.  First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history.  Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history:  the dates, the names, the places.  Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history:  the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries.  I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story.  Second was the double standard for historical fiction.  As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy.  That seems unfair.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie.   Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie.  These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom.  There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things.  Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Slaves on Screen==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an &amp;quot;open mind&amp;quot; about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous &amp;quot;notions&amp;quot; about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). &amp;quot;Keeping one&amp;#039;s mind Open,&amp;quot; allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one&amp;#039;s own personal rear view. - Micheal E. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beginning pages of &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davis says that historical films &amp;quot;speculate&amp;quot; about the past, and calls the films &amp;quot;thought experiments.&amp;quot; This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools &amp;quot;modes of narration&amp;quot; and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film&amp;#039;s omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the &amp;quot;modes of narration&amp;quot; in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research.  As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected.  We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, &amp;quot;we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete&amp;quot; (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover&amp;#039;s agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry &amp;quot;as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world.&amp;quot; Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover&amp;#039;s agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers &amp;quot;a large group of films that express a similar worldview&amp;quot; (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote &amp;quot;What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are&amp;quot;. This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender  which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today&amp;#039;s movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he&amp;#039;s right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president&amp;#039;s claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don&amp;#039;t think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction&amp;quot; (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: &amp;quot;whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality&amp;quot; (10).  In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine&amp;#039;s discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed.  -Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hollywood&amp;#039;s America==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is &amp;quot;how influential are movies?&amp;quot; So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society.  It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences.  Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”?  &lt;br /&gt;
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones.  Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry.  Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, &amp;quot;The public is never wrong...The public pays money.  It wants to be entertained.  That&amp;#039;s all I know.&amp;quot; (11)  This philosophy still holds true today.  The people with the money have the control.  And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience.  This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees.  All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress.  According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures.  Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment.  This history of Hollywood&amp;#039;s America shows this, and it also shows something more important.  I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things.  We can&amp;#039;t absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical.  As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective.  The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time.  First start with the simple, then move to the complex.  The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just &amp;quot;how influential are movies?&amp;quot; in general but &amp;quot;how influential are movies to the history of America?&amp;quot; If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to the question, &amp;quot;How influential are movies?&amp;quot; I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, &amp;quot;The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these.&amp;quot; I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life.  -- Justine R.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-08-26T01:53:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Reel History, Introduction */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s reading here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Reel History, Introduction==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, &amp;quot; Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind.&amp;quot; (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that both &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed Toplin&amp;#039;s introduction to his ideas in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that &amp;quot;cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events.&amp;quot; I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin argues for &amp;quot;a balanced approach in assessing cinema&amp;#039;s treatments of the past&amp;quot; (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them.  Toplin says, &amp;quot;Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention,&amp;quot; and I think that&amp;#039;s healthy and exciting.  - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature.  It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.  However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people.  Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies.  Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history.  For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties.  However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction.  Two major points stood out for me.  First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history.  Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history:  the dates, the names, the places.  Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history:  the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries.  I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story.  Second was the double standard for historical fiction.  As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy.  That seems unfair.  - Cilla&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Why can&amp;#039;t moviemakers portray the truth?&amp;quot; This seems like an incredibly easy and basic question but one that is so central to movies in popular culture.  In a nutshell, it seems like this book is based on this question that Toplin asks.  I think many people do beleive that movies, while posessing some historical facts are far from accurate.  I have personally not really delved into the historically accuracy of films.  I would go to a movie, think of it as relating to maybe one big historical event, but stopping my analysis there.  Overall, I think Toplin will try to communicate how important it is to keep an open mind while relating movies with history and that we may be suprised with his findings. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Slaves on Screen==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The beginning pages of &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Davis says that historical films &amp;quot;speculate&amp;quot; about the past, and calls the films &amp;quot;thought experiments.&amp;quot; This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools &amp;quot;modes of narration&amp;quot; and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film&amp;#039;s omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover&amp;#039;s agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry &amp;quot;as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world.&amp;quot; Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover&amp;#039;s agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers &amp;quot;a large group of films that express a similar worldview&amp;quot; (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote &amp;quot;What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are&amp;quot;. This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender  which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today&amp;#039;s movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he&amp;#039;s right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president&amp;#039;s claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don&amp;#039;t think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hollywood&amp;#039;s America==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is &amp;quot;how influential are movies?&amp;quot; So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society.  It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences.  Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”?  &lt;br /&gt;
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones.  Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?&lt;br /&gt;
-Samantha W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry.  Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, &amp;quot;The public is never wrong...The public pays money.  It wants to be entertained.  That&amp;#039;s all I know.&amp;quot; (11)  This philosophy still holds true today.  The people with the money have the control.  And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience.  This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees.  All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress.  According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures.  Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment.  This history of Hollywood&amp;#039;s America shows this, and it also shows something more important.  I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things.  We can&amp;#039;t absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical.  As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective.  The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time.  First start with the simple, then move to the complex.  The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-21T23:21:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn&amp;#039;t just get support from other &amp;quot;hard hatted&amp;quot; women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the &amp;quot;sisterhood&amp;quot; aspect of the women&amp;#039;s lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving.  Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through.   Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy.  It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy.  She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them.  She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women.  As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, &amp;quot;Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two&amp;quot; (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss.  I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married.   I enjoyed Eisenberg&amp;#039;s perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive.  “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult.  The higher graduation rate in the trade school was &amp;quot;owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other&amp;quot; (278).  They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site.  It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site.  They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton&amp;#039;s determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Norma Rae was an interesting piece.  Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together.  Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions.  Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it.  A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up.  When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I!  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn&amp;#039;t sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, &amp;quot;Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter.&amp;quot;(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268).  We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with what Morgan has stated.  It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify.  The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon&amp;#039;s distinction between &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man.  She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare.  Her line, &amp;quot;The truth is that A.F.D.C  is like a supersexist marriage.  You trade in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man for &amp;#039;&amp;#039;the&amp;#039;&amp;#039; man&amp;quot; (287).  It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence.  This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states,  &amp;quot;There&amp;#039;s one good thing about welfare.  It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don&amp;#039;t make it.  If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything&amp;quot; (289).  If this doesn&amp;#039;t read like empowerment, I&amp;#039;m not sure what else does.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan&amp;#039;s and Abratchi&amp;#039;s comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn&amp;#039;t say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like &amp;quot;In this country if you&amp;#039;re any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you&amp;#039;re all those things you don&amp;#039;t count at all except as a statistic.&amp;quot; ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today&amp;#039;s society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn&amp;#039;t read a testimonial of today&amp;#039;s Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn&amp;#039;t had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it&amp;#039;s just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem  to be a &amp;quot;size&amp;quot; 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its&amp;#039; true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement &amp;quot;Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success&amp;quot; (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don&amp;#039;t understand how a male who isn&amp;#039;t exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it&amp;#039;s hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won&amp;#039;t run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it&amp;#039;s okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense. I&amp;#039;m not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It&amp;#039;s a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society&amp;#039;s standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn&amp;#039;t an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it?  --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, &amp;quot;It doesn&amp;#039;t take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,...&amp;quot;(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points.  I think her willingness to show that the issue of &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; actually produces a negative view on women is interesting.  She believes that &amp;quot;date rape&amp;quot; victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings.  I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious.  Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings.  Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, &amp;quot;cripple&amp;quot; and said, &amp;quot;[people]-wince at the word &amp;#039;&amp;#039;cripple&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, as they do not at handicapped or disabled.&amp;quot;(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the &amp;quot;World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits,&amp;quot; 1978==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the disparity between men and women&amp;#039;s pay, such as this woman: &amp;quot;whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Times&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Washington bureau.&amp;quot; (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, &amp;quot;sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper.&amp;quot; (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a &amp;quot;genteel form&amp;quot; that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn&amp;#039;t understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, &amp;quot;If she weren&amp;#039;t a woman, she&amp;#039;d be in the bullpen right now!&amp;quot; (P. 465) Why didn&amp;#039;t he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-21T15:35:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference.  What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that  had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. &lt;br /&gt;
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Real &amp;quot;Norma Rae&amp;quot; Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277)  It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper.  My interviewee&amp;#039;s father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did.  &amp;quot;[They] didn&amp;#039;t think I ought to go&amp;quot; (274).  However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity.  Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable.  Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class.  Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions.  This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-16T21:50:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the story about the WAC suits!  Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it.  I&amp;#039;ve honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII (&amp;quot;fun and fear&amp;quot;).  -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak&amp;#039;s paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley&amp;#039;s paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann&amp;#039;s the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women&amp;#039;s Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging &amp;quot;male dominated roles&amp;quot; women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the sentiments already expressed here, that the majority of women who were interviewed and written about had similar experiences and how interesting that is. It also seemed that many of these women remembered feeling alone in their struggle to maintain the family and the struggles to either work or not to work. I find this very interesting because many of these women had friends who were having similar struggles, but I think that earlier in the 20th century talking about and sharing the daily struggles that individuals went through was not considered appropriate. I would have thought that these women would not have felt so secluded and alone in their struggle, but I think they lived in a different world than our generation does now and I think technology plays a major role in that openness that is seen now. These women were not raised in a technologically based culture and the technology that was around literally was new and never seen before which sometimes made life more difficult than it needed to be. &lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that these women remember the role of women as housewives and mothers, and some of them had fonder views of those roles than others. A few thought of housework as something other than unpaid labor (just something they had to do that didn’t affect the structure and stability of the family) and I think that those would remembered it as something they were expected to do rather than what they wanted to do voluntarily  seemed to remember it less fondly. Would anyone else agree? Maybe I’m reading too far into things. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg&amp;#039;s interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important.  Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married.  Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant.  However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper.  In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement.  Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children.  There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure.    Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ms. Bobbi Blalock had an interesting outlook on women’s view of the family.  She seems to have traditional views based in older generations.  Though this is not prevalent in the other interviews, it does seem striking because she placed a strong importance on the woman being in the home and that offering security to children.  It does make me question if the brashness of the 1960’s and 70’s was a little too over the top for some women.  -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun&amp;#039;s, Catherine Brau&amp;#039;s, and Ellen Fritz&amp;#039;s paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women&amp;#039;s liberation. In Braun and Fritz&amp;#039;s papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau&amp;#039;s paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women&amp;#039;s lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women&amp;#039;s balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree.  What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming off what Caryn said I think it is interesting that her subject felt that her experiences were not typical yet this project showed that alot of women had similar experiences. I think it reflects that perhaps some women felt they were alone in there desire to continue there life after children and marriage. It reminded me of Betty Friedans article where she found women discussing this &amp;quot;unnameable problem&amp;quot; as if it were taboo. I know my interviewee felt isolated in her experiences as a working mother and eventually a divorcee yet this study shows that many women were dealing with the same issues. But i do think it is interesting that the subjects would feel like there experience was atypical of other women, yet in reality it may not have been. -Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn&amp;#039;t forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women&amp;#039;s lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren&amp;#039;t marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women&amp;#039;s rights movement did a lot, but it&amp;#039;s really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann how it can be a little surprising to hear how women could be happy being housewives.  I think sometimes in class we forget that many people were happy with society&amp;#039;s expectations.  This ties back into what we talked about earlier in the semester with paid vs. unpaid work.  It is interesting how some of the woman took the role of being a mother as the focus on their life, while others did not seem to compare it to a job at all.  There seems to be a little difference in how some of the women who raised kids view their life versus the way those who choose not to, though really each woman is just as much of an individual regardless of what choices they made.  -J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives.  Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college.  Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married.  It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families.  There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider&amp;#039;s for their family.  Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century.  What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older.  These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams.  Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future.  The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20&amp;#039;s or early 30&amp;#039;s to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare.  They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age.  Who&amp;#039;s to say which option is better.  Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that &amp;quot;women&amp;quot; in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn&amp;#039;t affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn&amp;#039;t always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. It also really surprises me that no one above me seemed to have noticed this.    –ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As most people have stated, I noticed a lot of similarities between a lot of the papers I read.  I noticed that a lot of women worked and attended school.  After doing my own interview and comparing it with the trends discussed in class, it feels like more women were able to attend school than actually did.  I agree with a lot of what Taylor stated above, &amp;quot;Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time.&amp;quot; This was a trend I noticed as well among the papers.  It appears that a lot of these women who were interviewed either had to work or chose to work, but there was some ultimate cost to it.  Whether it was relationships or their own health.  I think that Sarah brings up a good point that I myself did not catch until reading her post.  A lot of these women are old and their opinion is biased. My interviewee for example never once stated that her situation was hard, even though she worked as a full-time nurse, with four children and a husband who was a doctor and in the navy.  I think that a lot of time as older people look back, things might not seem as bad as they were.   -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seemed to be trend in which the women in these interviews maintained motherhood and work so well in spite of society saying that you cannot achieve both. These women overcame challenges, heartaches, and divorce and at the same time embraced life, love, and raised their children.  The women coming out of middle class families had more opportunities.  I recognized the shift in expectations and push for oneself to go to college in these women’s experiences also. But I agree with Sarah, these are reflective memories, so we can&amp;#039;t get a total feeling of what that person felt at that time, it&amp;#039;s more glossed over sometimes.  I think it&amp;#039;s important to remember that we only captured pieces of their lives in the interview.  There was a lot of really interesting things that I couldn&amp;#039;t all fit in 2 pages, did anyone else have that problem?  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it fascinating that despite the geographical location, many of the women who shared similar socioeconomic statuses had similar experiences. For example, Mrs. Ripley, who Megan interviewed, seemed to be a well-off woman from the South. She had a very similar story to the upper class Northern woman that I interviewed. The main difference I found was that the Northern woman I interviewed was very progressive, while the Southern woman Megan interviewed seemed to be more conservative. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very surprising trend that I noticed was how easily many of these women would drop what they were doing to get married! Alice Wagner, for example, described the life of Lois Wagner who was attending Mary Washington and quit school in her junior year to get married. This is similar to the person I interviewed who got a highly prestigious grant to do medical research at the Rockefeller Institute for sickle cell anemia and methadone, but met her husband and chose not to attend Rockefeller Institute. These women put so much work towards their education, and they just stop as soon as they got married. That is why I am not surprised that the U.S. Government eventually saw women as a misused resource. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed many of these women working as secretaries or doing work in the clerical field.  Two worked as secretaries in the government and these were jobs that were deemed as &amp;quot;acceptable&amp;quot; by society.  This seems to follow the trend of what we learned in class in that women worked, but they were often confined to specific jobs.  Nursing seemed to be another one of those &amp;quot;accepted&amp;quot; positions and through the papers, it seemed as if it was very female dominated.  It seems like after and around and during the war, women were confined by societies expectations to specific jobs, but over the years, thos restrictions lifted and they have spread their skills. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-16T00:26:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak&amp;#039;s paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley&amp;#039;s paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it&amp;#039;s interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann&amp;#039;s the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women&amp;#039;s Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging &amp;quot;male dominated roles&amp;quot; women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg&amp;#039;s interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important.  Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married.  Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant.  However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper.  In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement.  Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children.  There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure.    Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun&amp;#039;s, Catherine Brau&amp;#039;s, and Ellen Fritz&amp;#039;s paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women&amp;#039;s liberation. In Braun and Fritz&amp;#039;s papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau&amp;#039;s paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women&amp;#039;s lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women&amp;#039;s balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree.  What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn&amp;#039;t forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women&amp;#039;s lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren&amp;#039;t marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women&amp;#039;s rights movement did a lot, but it&amp;#039;s really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives.  Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college.  Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married.  It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families.  There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider&amp;#039;s for their family.  Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-15T03:42:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /*  */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THIS WEEK&amp;#039;S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING.  You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers.  A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Class discussion:  We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see that &amp;quot;typical housewife and mother&amp;quot; trend with a majority of the women interviewed.  The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs.  I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn&amp;#039;t been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn&amp;#039;t what society expected.  However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later.  With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching).  Overall, I think it&amp;#039;s important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices&amp;#039; paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle.  Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-08T02:38:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so.  To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two.  My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it.  Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized.  The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well.  I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret.  The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott.   -- Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I&amp;#039;m sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly  content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on &amp;quot;suspicion,&amp;quot; and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. &amp;quot;The white people really believed that. They didn&amp;#039;t see through it all.&amp;quot;(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I&amp;#039;m sure this wasn&amp;#039;t the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie.  I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change.  The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case?   The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen?  Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was.  It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear.  Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed.  It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I&amp;#039;m just more cynical, but I don&amp;#039;t believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the &amp;quot;roar of indignation&amp;quot; over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery&amp;#039;s white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of &amp;quot;respectable women&amp;quot; themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement.  There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement.  Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that &amp;quot;the black women needed those jobs&amp;quot; (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, &amp;quot;Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand&amp;#039;s in the lion&amp;#039;s mouth, it&amp;#039;s just better to pat it on the head.&amp;quot; (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.&amp;#039;s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels.  I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times.  I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry.  What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman.  Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened.  It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely.  I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea.  Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers.  It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, lots of comments on this.  The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him.  The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out.  The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me.  Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice.  -Erin&lt;br /&gt;
 B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the more interesting in this article was the lengths that the whites went to even when blacks were boycotting the busses.  For example, it says the policemen would give white people tickets for giving blacks rides to and from work because they would not take the busses.  It seems like they were turning on their own race and I am incredibly suprised that they would ticket whites for this.  In addition, it is completely illegal, and there is no law about who you can give rides to.  These white women would not quit giving rides because they needed these women to work on time and the best way for that was to help them out and give them rides.  This seems like one of the few times in history where black and white women bonded together, and white women were indirectly helping the civil rights cause. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455).  I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking.  Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I&amp;#039;ve only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin.  The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression.  They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable.  The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from  multiplying.  I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane.  When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing.  The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women.  Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace.  Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies.  I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities?   I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior.  I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn&amp;#039;t that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing.  If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality.  I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult.  How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight?  In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455).  Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too.  The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against.  – Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I&amp;#039;m a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn&amp;#039;t exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal&amp;#039;s arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I&amp;#039;ve encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether!  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she&amp;#039;s asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that &amp;#039;machismo&amp;#039; is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world.  I&amp;#039;m always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin b&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women&amp;#039;s rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women&amp;#039;s groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;More Than a Lady&amp;quot; Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women&amp;#039;s Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn&amp;#039;t completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike &amp;amp; proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn&amp;#039;t truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn&amp;#039;t have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson&amp;#039;s voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man&amp;#039;s voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;must&amp;#039;&amp;#039; belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it&amp;#039;s sad that she didn&amp;#039;t live to see all the progress that&amp;#039;s been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson&amp;#039;s actions &amp;quot;fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness&amp;quot; (pg 557), a trait we&amp;#039;ve seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more &amp;quot;feminine&amp;quot; when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women.  I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how &amp;quot;Ebony&amp;quot; tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman.  The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job.  An interesting example she used  was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work.  An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities.  These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility.  With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in?  As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory.  What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white.  But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together.  If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were.  To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman.   --Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today&amp;#039;s terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It&amp;#039;s not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Laila Haidarali, &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this article spoke of &amp;quot;Brownskin&amp;quot; models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;We Marched for Our Rights,&amp;quot; Rev. Naomi Craig ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last line of this article struck me the most, &amp;quot;I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to.&amp;quot; If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter&amp;#039;s welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, &amp;quot;I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors.&amp;quot; That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter&amp;#039;s school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones.  Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. &amp;quot;How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn&amp;#039;t protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr&amp;#039;s death was felt by many across the nation as well I&amp;#039;m sure. &amp;quot;Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn&amp;#039;t just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights.&amp;quot;  Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class. Mrs.Craig&amp;#039;s point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn&amp;#039;t really know how bad it really was in the South. There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn&amp;#039;t agree with the war she didn&amp;#039;t protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, &amp;quot;Look, this is history. We need to be in this.&amp;quot; Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-07T17:05:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie&amp;quot; (p. 225).  We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail.  I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played.  I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women.  They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike.  White women also understood the important of keeping black women&amp;#039;s involvement in the boycotts a secret.  It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired.  I&amp;#039;m just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement?  Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so.  To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two.  My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it.  Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized.  The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well.  I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret.  The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott.   -- Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I&amp;#039;m sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly  content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on &amp;quot;suspicion,&amp;quot; and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. &amp;quot;The white people really believed that. They didn&amp;#039;t see through it all.&amp;quot;(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I&amp;#039;m sure this wasn&amp;#039;t the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced.  In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason:  &amp;quot;forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies.&amp;quot;  So, the procedure was a permanent birth control.  I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455).  I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking.  Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I&amp;#039;ve only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin.  The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression.  They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable.  The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from  multiplying.  I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane.  When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing.  The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women.  Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace.  Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;More Than a Lady&amp;quot; Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women&amp;#039;s Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn&amp;#039;t completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike &amp;amp; proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn&amp;#039;t truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn&amp;#039;t have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson&amp;#039;s voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man&amp;#039;s voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;must&amp;#039;&amp;#039; belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women.  I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how &amp;quot;Ebony&amp;quot; tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman.  The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job.  An interesting example she used  was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work.  An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities.  These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility.  With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in?  As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory.  What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white.  But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together.  If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were.  To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman.   --Mhimes&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T04:23:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* &amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Betty Bogs said, &amp;quot;I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war.&amp;quot; (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Betty enjoyed working; I&amp;#039;m sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, &amp;quot;Josh had a good relationship built up, because he&amp;#039;d have Tad to himself.&amp;quot; (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked!  The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace.  Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs.  However &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for raising a kid she thinks that &amp;quot;a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child&amp;#039;s life,&amp;quot; (30)  Does this mean that she did not think it was a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a kid?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As EFritz was saying above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it really is hard for a woman to judge another about their struggle of work and home until they are in that position.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boggs was able to keep working, but mainly just because her husband was home more while continuing his education.  Had he already finished school, she would have had to end her career earlier.  It wasn&amp;#039;t as if he was like &amp;quot;Hey Honey, you keep on keepin&amp;#039; on at that job of yours and make me some money!&amp;quot; He understood how much easier it would be at the time to have the arrangement of work and home that way... In response to J Rowley&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think Boggs was implying that it was not a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a child.  As a mother, you feel a certain bond or connection with your child and not only want to be there in those initial year, but you feel a NEED to be there for your child.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article was chosen to be the first for this section because it is still relevant to the struggles that women-and especially mothers, go through today. The struggle between wanting to be a full time caregiver and the desire to have a career and be successful in the field of your choosing do not always go hand in hand, and some places of employment are not as accommodating as one would like them to be. Rarely are “stay at home” dads the ideal image of American families even today. A stay at home dad contrasts to what people see as the “normal” family situation, while a stay at home mom is still seen as the norm. Women who choose to work full time, for any reason, still have to face criticism from other people about how they choose to raise their children. And sometimes those critics do not take into account the improvements in the standard of living that the child (or children) can potentially attain if the mother works or both parents work. Supporting the children should be the main objective, but many times that idea gets lost in what outsiders consider proper. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She certainly won me over. (And I would especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;buy some more Samoas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to support her environmentalist cause.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman?  Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn&amp;#039;t specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it:  &amp;quot;I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we...&amp;quot; She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart.  --Sarah Smethurst &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;(Samoas FTW)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah&amp;#039;s post, I think that it was Carson&amp;#039;s intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women&amp;#039;s rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a quirk of grammar&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fascinating, insightful and harrowing&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I wonder &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Morgan above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I feel pretty much the opposite way about everything she said.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Yes abortion was risky but so was pregnancy and childbirth. This woman was young, unwed, and in school.  If she were to have had the child she would have lost everything in life that she worked so hard for.  She may have been able to have the child quietly and gave it up, but who would have paid for it and where would she have gone? Her parents would have likely shunned her out of their lives, she didn&amp;#039;t have the money, the &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; of the baby didn&amp;#039;t have money. She would have had to take months off of school, and how would she have explained that?  And perhaps she could have gotten an infection from the abortion, but women were not sitting around gabbing about abortions so it&amp;#039;s not like they had first-hand accounts to go off of, just heresay and gossip.  I feel she was not &amp;quot;in hast,&amp;quot; she clearly weighed her options and knew what would have happen if she would have had a baby in her position.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin’s piece “An Unplanned Pregnancy” was touching and interesting. I think that Rubin was attempting to express the fact that there was regret involved but she did what she thought was right. I agree with Christine, here is a young woman who did not love the person that impregnated her, in her first year of Grad school. If she did love him, she “might have kept it” (217) but she didn’t.  Which is a better choice, to live a life with a child and a husband whom you do not love and resent? Or go to any lengths, in this case, Puerto Rico, to have an abortion. She admits that this was a hard decision with consequences.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It also seems that her personal doctor was not completely opposed to her choice “When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor and he had told me to come and see him afterwards”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (217). He even gave her antibiotics. I was wondering how often doctors helped patients who went to have abortions out of the country or illegally? –Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It became a moral dilemma.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women at this time were dealing with such an immense problem. Prior to WWII, they had obtained universal suffrage, and then more independence through the work place while their husbands were in combat. Suddenly, when their husbands returned their extensive independence disappeared as well. Many would would have been scrutinized by their husbands or their peers for complaining about the lifestyle changes they encountered. It is not surprising to see them internalize many of their doubts and fears regarding their complacency or position in society. Over time, it is evident that the problem that women encountered disappeared, and women began to obtain more control of their own lives and leverage in society. Friedan was a pioneer in exploring communication and bonds between women.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this passage very interesting and thought provoking.  Women had a brief glimpse of life in the workplace during World War II, but when the men came home, they again assumed their traditional role as a housewife.  This excerpt mainly revolves around the question: Is this all our lives&amp;#039; will amount to?  Many obviously wanted more than what a housewife provided and some felt almost incomplete doing the monotonous work of daily chores.  However, I think now, especially after doing my interview that this work could not only be difnified but also quite challenging.  The person who I interviewed said her daughter in law is a stay at home mom and she works harder than anybody she knows.  I expect these women to wish for more after many of them had jobs for years, but their work can be just as hard as many respects as what the men are doing. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Psychiatrist Marynia F. Farnham and Sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg Denounce the Modern Woman as the &amp;quot;Lost Sex,&amp;quot; 1947 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance, these writers describe the &amp;quot;Modern Woman&amp;quot; of 1947, as one who appears to have her own destiny within her grasp.  She is now conflicted however, because she has more responsibility; to the home, children, and to work. I found this article interesting because the writers argue the modern woman of their time is now struggling to retain femininity because she is in the &amp;quot;dangerous position of having to live one part of her life on the masculine level, [and] another on the feminine.&amp;quot;(413) Is the need to be equal to men and their accomplishments what caused this rivalry? I never really thought of how damaging the social and psychological barriers were in Post-War War II America. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I understand women proved what they were capable of, but what I am still curious about is how hard was it for women to switch back to dependence of their husbands when they knew they were just as capable in the workforce.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; From the videos we saw in class, I gathered that many women found pride that they could do skilled labor, but this article brings up a good perspective I think. From my interpretation the perspective is that women&amp;#039;s success has to be achieved through a balance of dependence and independence in their role in the household. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Just imagine being in that courtroom. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was charming.  I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress.  I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework.  And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail.  What irony. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with their political opinions, but I&amp;#039;m just saying...their personality would be a good thing to have. Their spunk would continue to entertain people.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through &amp;quot;the public fascination with Hollywood.&amp;quot;(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being from Southern California, I can definately relate to this article and many of the points that are made here are definately still relevant today, many years later.  Many still live in poverty and are often treated as second class citizens.  There are tons of farming fields in the area, and you can generally only see mexicans out there picking.  It&amp;#039;s not that they choose this lifestyle, just that they are somehow relegated to do it.  One interesting thing the article mentions is that there was no gradual immersion language program and it was just &amp;quot;sink or swim in an English-only environment&amp;quot; (365).  I beleive this still holds true today, although it is somewhat better.  I knew some who hardly spoke english and were just thrown into an english-speaking environment, and this incredibly difficult to adapt.  Another interesting point is that being &amp;quot;Spanish&amp;quot; had a somewhat positive connotation whereas being &amp;quot;Mexican&amp;quot; was a negative connotation.  They speak the same language yet being from Mexico somehow makes you worse than being from Spain.  The thing that stands out to me the most is that people then and even now seem to have a pre-conceived notion that mexicans are inherently lower class than Americans, but they are people, just like we are. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of Native Americans deserves just as much credit as African Americans or Women&amp;#039;s history. This story of Indian relocation is just one of the many very sad experiences of what  United States policy has put them through.  The sadist part of it all is that they were here first! This particular story shows that even in the 1950s the US was still relocating 60,000 Indians thinking we had the right to &amp;quot;mainstream &amp;quot; them into Urban areas. After reading this depressing story it make me feel extremely grateful that Native Americans are no longer treated in this way and made me realize if anyone in the USA should be the most proud to be American, it should be all the Native Americans left today that still retain their cultures. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, I feel like the US government was good at alienating various racial/ethnic groups in America. The Indians had already been forcibly removed once (The Trail of Tears) but to do it again is just horrible. The fact that the government changed it mind all of a sudden was both disturbing to the American Indian way of life, but also scarred them emotionally and in many other ways, which is similar to what abratchi said above. What is most awful is how the Mankiller family had so much trouble adapting.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How could the government just take the Indians from their old way of life and drop them into bustling urban/industrial cities, where they have no idea what to do, how to act, and are seen as aliens to the country, even though they were Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was sad to read about how the girls were made fun of at school, and as a result they &amp;quot;sat up late every night reading aloud to each other to get rid of our accents.&amp;quot; (P. 214). These girls were so ashamed of their ancestry, which was even sadder. Why was it so necessary to assimilate different cultures into American culture? Why couldn&amp;#039;t white Americans just simply coexist with minority groups and accept one another for their differences instead of displacing them physically as well as emotionally? Wilma Mankiller used the word &amp;quot;alienation&amp;quot; which I think is a perfect word to describe this situation. These Indians were alienated from their homes, culture and just life in general and the worst part of all of it was that this relocation didn&amp;#039;t help the government in any way. So in the end, both the government and the Indians lost. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line really caught my attention:  &amp;quot;He (Wilma&amp;#039;s father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities&amp;quot; (p. 212).  Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I&amp;#039;m assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats.  So how did Wilma&amp;#039;s father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered?  From talking to the BIA?  From going to Boarding School?  From working?  Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039; from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Letter to the editor of The Ladder was very interesting.  I agree with Alice on many points. I was also intrigued by her account of the struggle that women faced in general, whether they were homosexual or not. She explains “Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries” (421). It must have been comforting for lesbian women to have these publications out there.  As  MP explained in the preface to the chapter, The Ladder was the first American lesbian publication. Upon further research, I found that The Ladder was the first nationally distributed lesbian publication in the United States and was edited by Phyllis Lyon, co founder of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian organization. As the writer of the letter noted, this publication was “a fine elementary step in a rewarding direction” (421). It seems like a publication such as The Ladder was a step forward in bringing the lesbian community together while portraying a positive image of lesbian women to the public, something that was beyond taboo at the time. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reminded me so much of this wonderful non-fiction piece called &amp;quot;The Ghetto Girls&amp;#039; Guide to Dating and Romance&amp;quot; by Sonja Livingston. Check it out. ANYWAYS  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also heard echoes of the &amp;quot;double burden&amp;quot; idea of being both black and a woman:  &amp;quot;the Negro woman finds herself at the bottom of the economic and social scale.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I imagine that Murray&amp;#039;s article was pretty darn controversial at the time--she talks unabashedly about the failings of black men, throwing her lot in with ostracized women who have spoken out with similar opinions. She makes a bold call to arms, and I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how that was taken. I&amp;#039;d imagine there was a lot of hate mail involved. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-04-01T04:02:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family,&amp;quot; Betty Jeanne Boggs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Always this-- &amp;#039;because you&amp;#039;re a woman&amp;#039;&amp;quot; (page 208). I was really moved by this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t believe that things written by females (what feels like) SO LONG AGO are still things that I look at society today and think are completely ridiculous. I did, however, really appreciate her husband in this article. FINALLY, a good man in history who wasn&amp;#039;t pushing his wife into the home. He encouraged her to work while he finished school because she liked her work, even though they were married, and when they accidentially got married he still wanted her to continue working because he KNEW how much she liked her job. I wish there were more historically based documents that talked about things like this just because it makes things not always depressing. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I still felt strong emotions towards her statement &amp;quot;For one thing, I wanted to stay home with the baby; two, I wanted to help Josh get through; three, I really enjoyed that job. I just didn&amp;#039;t know what to do about it, because I enjoyed working and yet I thought I should really be home with that baby&amp;quot; (page 210)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it&amp;#039;s something that I feel goes above the issue of sex and into the issue of parenthood. I can&amp;#039;t imagine it&amp;#039;s ever easy to look at your child bonding more with your husband/wife and NOT feel like you may be missing out on something because you feel like you have obligations that don&amp;#039;t allow that access. I am sure that her husband felt the exact same way when he looked at her relationship with the children, though, because in a family it always seems greener on the other side. I feel as though this article truly represents a healthy relationship between husband and wife, and every insecurity that Betty Jeanne Boggs felt about working while she had a husband was something that was based upon society, not upon her husbands actions. This could just be my wishful thinking, but it&amp;#039;s nice to imagine. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I admire this woman for paving the way for working mothers, if only for a time, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also noticed her husband&amp;#039;s willingness to rely on her for income while he finished school and often stayed home with their son. His attitude appears remarkably progressive for a time when many thought men should be resuming their places as heads of households after the war.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also noticed how conflicted the author felt about both wanting to work and wanting to be at home with her children, saying she &amp;quot;wanted to be in two places at one time.&amp;quot; &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I went to the Great Lives lecture on Rosie the Riveter tonight, and the speaker quoted a poll taken during WWII about the most admired women in America. First was Eleanor Roosevelt, and second was Betty Crocker,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and I think those contrasting results reflect the independence and work vs. domestic housewife dichotomy that women like the author experienced in those years. Many of today&amp;#039;s working mothers can turn to their mothers for advice on how to balance their different wants and obligations, but these women were part of the first generation of women, of middle class women especially, to really have any sort of opportunity to work outside of the home after having children. They were making it up as they went along. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like reading about Rosie the Riveters. They are definitely an inspiration for women. Sometimes, however, I read about a woman or hear her story as I did with Betty Jeanne Boggs&amp;#039; story, and  I feel that it&amp;#039;s a story about two different women. One part of the story is the rise of a more independent woman who relies on herself financially, has to take care of the children while the husband is off fighting the war, and is usually working at a labor-intensive job. They juggle everything fairly well for being on their own and even obtain raises in wages and in higher positions as in Boggs&amp;#039; case. As soon as the husbands come home and the war is over, a new woman appears. Even though Boggs&amp;#039; did want to eventually continue her career she didn&amp;#039;t do so until much later down the road when her children were full grown. She was content with staying at home taking care of her husband and family. She was consumed with her family. She said, &amp;quot;...but I would never go anywhere unless he would go,&amp;quot; (referring to her husband). No longer were women working and creating their own wealth. They were again housewives and for the most part enjoyed being in that role. Personally I think because the idea of a women working and being away from the home and being a mother was fairly new, most didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible to juggle both or weren&amp;#039;t sure how to go about doing it. I think more men than women didn&amp;#039;t think it was possible otherwise the &amp;quot;problem that has no name&amp;quot; would not have arose. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Betty Bogs said, &amp;quot;I worked in a war plant and it was one of the things you did when your country was at war.&amp;quot; (P. 208) Just the way she said it made it sound like it was normal, and I think she is right in a sense&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. It was normal for women to go out and work; it was a way to help with the war effort. Her experience of loving her job seemed quite similar to the other Rosie the Riveters we have read about. I was surprised though, to see that she was going to school for a math degree, and even considered becoming a lab technician. At the time, I think it was frowned upon for women to be anything other than a housewife or a teacher. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even when I did my interview for our paper, my interviewee said the only jobs you went to school for were to be a teacher or a secretary.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Betty enjoyed working; I&amp;#039;m sure it was liberating to her because she was doing something many people frowned upon. It was also interesting how there was a prominent role reversal between Betty and her husband Josh. She was the one working, and her husband was the one who was with their baby more often and seemed to have a closer relationship with the child. Bogs said, &amp;quot;Josh had a good relationship built up, because he&amp;#039;d have Tad to himself.&amp;quot; (P. 210). And, her husband was completely okay with staying at home with the children while she worked!  The surprising part was, though, that although Betty loved her job and enjoyed working, she encouraged women to stay home with their children because it was important to their development. I guess that was the most surprising part to me. She worked so hard and had come so far, but realized that in the end, her family came first. -- Alex M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I find it rather ironic that today’s woman still struggles with the choice between staying home and raising her children and going out into the workplace.  Being an older student, I notice a number of my friends who have college degrees, including post-graduate degrees and have made the decision to forego a career or postpone their career to stay home with their children. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that it is difficult to say what decision you will make regarding your kids until you are in the position of having to make the decision of leaving your child with someone else or working.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Betty Jeanne Boggs was fortunate to be married to someone willing to sacrifice his time to give her the opportunity to further her career and her husband was lucky to have a woman willing to support him while he finished school. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boggs obviously believed that a woman should be able to do anything a man could do, such as go to school and work in certain jobs.  However &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for raising a kid she thinks that &amp;quot;a mother should be there the first couple of years of a child&amp;#039;s life,&amp;quot; (30)  Does this mean that she did not think it was a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a kid?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Obviously she felt that a man should help, as Josh helped plenty with Tad but their was never any mention of him giving up his education or his job.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As EFritz was saying above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;it really is hard for a woman to judge another about their struggle of work and home until they are in that position.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Boggs was able to keep working, but mainly just because her husband was home more while continuing his education.  Had he already finished school, she would have had to end her career earlier.  It wasn&amp;#039;t as if he was like &amp;quot;Hey Honey, you keep on keepin&amp;#039; on at that job of yours and make me some money!&amp;quot; He understood how much easier it would be at the time to have the arrangement of work and home that way... In response to J Rowley&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think Boggs was implying that it was not a man&amp;#039;s place to raise a child.  As a mother, you feel a certain bond or connection with your child and not only want to be there in those initial year, but you feel a NEED to be there for your child.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers Her Critics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not the world&amp;#039;s biggest environmentalist and I still loved this article. Rachel Carson did an awesome job defending herself against her critics in this article and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Ridiculous that her response &amp;quot;No, the problem of pesticides is not merely the dream of an avracious author, out to pile up royalties by frightening the public- it is very much with us, here and now&amp;quot; (page 229) even has to be made. Her proof of the levels of toxins in the dying animals was disgusting, to say the very least. and I completely agree with her statement that &amp;quot;A world that is no longer fit for wild plants that is no longer graced by the flights of birds, a world whose streams and forrests are empty and lifeless is not likely to be fit habitat for man himself, for these things are symptoms of an ailing world&amp;quot; (page 228). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She certainly won me over. (And I would especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;buy some more Samoas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to support her environmentalist cause.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that earlier in this class we had talked about how women were often linked to the environmentalist cause so I tried to keep that in mind when I was reading this piece. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I am not sure if I could picture a man writing this with the same effect.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Most of the points she makes are very strong and she even seems to go against the point that she is saving nature only to save the beauty of it.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;However, if women were still connected to the environmentalist cause would she have an easier time winning them over because she was a woman?  Would she have a tougher time gaining support from men?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
J Rowley--good questions. What if Silent Spring had been written by a man? Gotta love theoreticals... I agreed that this was a very strong answer to all of her critics--stronger still because she didn&amp;#039;t specifically target any one person or company, and made it clear that she was not taking any of the criticism personally, and was thus not bothered by it:  &amp;quot;I am confident that the verdict of history will show that we...&amp;quot; She invokes history to her side, claiming that time will tell, as it ultimately did. Very smart.  --Sarah Smethurst &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;(Samoas FTW)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Sarah&amp;#039;s post, I think that it was Carson&amp;#039;s intention not to target one person, company, or group of people. During this period of time, when America was still feeling a backlash against women&amp;#039;s rights, it was tougher for women to gain momentum in anything they said or did. I think Carson realized this, and perhaps realized that she would be more effective if she left the boundaries opened and made a general statement, therefore gaining more support and respect from those who supported, and even more importantly those who opposed her.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Out of Church’s fear of bombs, “in the hundreds and thousands,”(410) she decides that the only way to save the world is to raise children the right way. But aside from that, something struck me funny, the second full paragraph on page 411, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Church discusses the importance of raising children correctly, but keeps referring to the child as “he”, “when &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has achieved complete control over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;himself&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and his environment. Only then can &amp;#039;&amp;#039;he&amp;#039;&amp;#039; meet the exigencies of worthy citizenship in the world of tomorrow.” So what does this say about the author’s view of the roles of girls in the future?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Do these rules listed by Church only apply to male children? Or perhaps it is the assumption that only the male children will be in the public arena and be able to make a difference in the “world of tomorrow” whereas female children will merely grow up to produce more children to raise in the same way her mother had? --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erin, I noticed that Church uses &amp;#039;he&amp;#039; throughout the piece, but I don&amp;#039;t necessarily think it was meant to indicate that girls were not valued, just &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;a quirk of grammar&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. She actually states quite clearly that in the near future women &amp;quot;will be taking their rightful place in world affairs,&amp;quot; and so girls should be &amp;quot;provided with the same opportunities&amp;quot; (pg. 411) as their brothers. She seems to hold a fairly egalitarian view of parenting, advocating that both mothers and fathers be involved in the lives of their children and consistently referring to the responsibilities of &amp;#039;parents&amp;#039; rather than simply the role of &amp;#039;mother. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann&amp;#039;s statement above. One of Church&amp;#039;s main arguments for attaining personal security for children is equal rights between all children and not showing favoritism, as well as asserting that &amp;quot;neither the father nor mother should reign supreme&amp;quot; (411). Going along with equal rights between the sexes, she defends that &amp;quot;girls should be provided with the same opportunities, intellectually, professionally, socially and economically as boys&amp;quot; (411). If Church believed that only male citizens are valuable members of society, I don&amp;#039;t believe she would be encouraging parents to provide their daughters with the same opportunities. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also found the wording of Church&amp;#039;s essay interesting when she states &amp;quot;women will be taking their &amp;#039;&amp;#039;rightful&amp;#039;&amp;#039; places in society&amp;quot; (411). This almost sounds feminist. It seems like Church is arguing that women have been denied something they were entitled to all along-an equal place with men in all worldly affairs.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Getting an abortion now seems like it would be a horrible, isolating experience. It is still so controversial that even if a woman makes that decision and is happy with it, she has to face judgment from everyone around her. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Abortion was to be unspoken of and it was really dangerous. In order to find a person to carry out an illegal abortion Joyce Johnson had to ask friends and friends of friends, all of whom probably judged her. She ended up having to meet a shady guy in a restaurant who had some sick obsession with helping girls get abortions. Joyce was truly alone through the entire process. --Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add, The fact that single women would rather face danger and health risks to have an illegal abortion than have a baby shows the amount of pressure that these women were under to fit into a mold. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regardless of one&amp;#039;s moral idea on the subject, I have to say the idea of having a child to many young women today is still the equivalent of dying. If only 1955 had been more acceptable towards the use of contraception, then less women, like Joyce Johnson, would have had to make the decision to stop an unplanned pregnancy. Still, it is disgusting that this decision today, and in 1955, was considered a PUBLIC decision in regards to laws and social acceptability. I still think today that ultra-coservatives would be more willing to forgive a serial rapist and murderer than a woman who made the decision to NOT ruin her life, career, societal standing, education, dreams, ambition, etc., to have an abortion. Based upon unplanned pregnancy levels just because the opportunity to have an abortion is there doesn&amp;#039;t mean that one is going to take advantage of that option. It is a very hard, and very personal decision; Which I think Joyce Johnson did an amazing job conveying. It isn&amp;#039;t fair that a male can have sex unprotected for fun and not have to deal with the same consequences (which the article implied that Joyce Johnson just knew that it was as much of an obligation to the father as it was to her which i would LOVE to have more information upon... was this the thinking of society as a whole at the time? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;)in today&amp;#039;s world even with sexual protection opportunities. Contradictory to her belief on his financial responsibility however I found it interesting that she said &amp;quot;Life was considered sacred. But independence could be punishable by death. The punishment for sex was, appropriately, sexual&amp;quot; (page 419) which is seemingly contradictory to the financial responsibility she felt he had. I totally support her on that statement though. A woman&amp;#039;s right to choose her life ends in this country when a zygote is involved, yet if she were sexually assaulted or raped the legal system would find a way to blame her as the Victim, instead of the male who was just acting naturally. more proof that the punishment for sex is appropriately sexual. I think having an abortion is something that Joyce Johnson thought about roughly, probably lost a ton of sleep over, and I&amp;#039;m happy that she had the opportunity to fly to Puerto Rico to get it done (although, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m also sadly suprised that having a legal abortion at a facility in Puerto Rico would be safer than an illegal one in the United States...??&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) because if she hadn&amp;#039;t had that opportunity then she would have been stuck with an unloved child and husband, and a disdain for their involvement in her life. Obviously, I feel very strongly in support of Joyce Johnson&amp;#039;s decision to take control of her livelihood, and believe that because of this experience she, and the boy who knocked her up, would in the future both be more careful in regards to sexual activity. It wasn&amp;#039;t a simple solution and from this article I can only imagine the disgust I would feel towards the society who would judge her for such a decision. It&amp;#039;s amazing how morality derived from the teachings of the Catholic Church, in their passage onto the other christian faiths based upon them, play such an unfortunate role historically in the lives of Women in the United States, yet Boys will just be boys. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;interesting that the doctor in Canarsie was clearly against abortions, as he didn’t even use the word “abortion” and admonished Johnson, telling her “don’t ever let me catch you back here again, young lady!” (421), yet he still was willing to perform the operation.  Why was that?  Did his concern for women’s safety, the fear that they might turn to someone incompetent, override his opposition to the procedure?  And were most doctors who performed illegal abortions like him, or did they genuinely believe the women had a right to the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Alice W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like Alice found interesting that the doctor described other procedures he performed but would not dare mention abortion. I do not think he really cared about women&amp;#039;s health, I think he was worried that if women came to him who were pregnant and wanted abortions one he would know they were pregnant outside of marriage and two he did not want people (government) to find out he was performing them, at the time I feel like he could of lost his license if it was found out. Maybe he did care about women but with all the precautions he took and the way he spoke to Joyce I have to say I do not think he did, he may of just been a doctor who did not believe in having children outside of marriage. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot;, by Joanna Rubin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;fascinating, insightful and harrowing&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I wonder &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;what audience Joanna Rubin was writing for and after having her abortion at a time when it was illegal, what made her be so willing to share her story.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; My curiosity was piqued about the beliefs of American doctors after the line, &amp;quot;When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor, and he told me to come and see him afterwards. I had a low-grade infection. He was very sweet, supportive, gave me antibiotics&amp;quot; (217).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Did American Doctors refer their patients to unofficial clinics that they knew off or simply accept that it was inevitable? As it was illegal, were doctors encouraged to turn in women who got abortions? Were there any actions taken against these women? For me, this article raised a lot more questions about what was typical than it answered.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer one of the questions raised above, I think maybe Joanna Rubin decided to tell her story because she needed to tell people, mainly women, that even though she knew that she wanted an abortion it was still a hard decision to make. She said, &amp;quot;Although I didn&amp;#039;t for a minute think I didn&amp;#039;t want the abortion, it was still a very, very heavy experience. It isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#039;Oh, this is a cool, easy decision to make, and there are no consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;quot;(217) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She wanted to make sure that women knew that abortion wasn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;taking the easy way out,&amp;quot; it was scary, intimidating, and probably created a feeling of guilt which may be another reason for her writing this piece.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I also was wondering about the number of women that went to Puerto Rico and other countries to receive abortions during this time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think when comparing this abortion story of Joanna to the other story of Jocye Johnson, it reveals that pregnancy was a very real and scary thing for women.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Both these women made desperate attempts to get an abortion, while still weighing the heavy costs of pain (both physical and emotional), injury,  and possible death. This story, in particular shows the willingness and hardships Joanna faced to get an abortion; it meant she had to leave the country just to do so.  It shows that pregnancy and abortion were real fears for young women, who had little to no access of birth control.  I think that it was included to show that there was a real need for contraceptive information in the 50&amp;#039;s and 60&amp;#039;s and what would lead to the landmark courtcase &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Roe v Wade&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I commend Joanna Rubin for writing her story at a time when abortion was illegal in the United States, I feel that she wanted other women to know that they were not alone. I think that even though Joanna knew she was going to get an abortion no questions asked she knew any woman who gets an abortion would feel a burden on her shoulders. I agree with abratchi this article made me think of Birth Control clinics and how there was a strong need for them not just for married women but any woman who wanted to learn about the risks, symptoms, or who to talk to when they found out they were pregnant. Even today I feel that more women should learn about the risks of pregnancy and how shows on MTV such as 16 and pregnant (while not the high quality) are a reality and show that all it takes is one time and you can be pregnant. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did women even think about an abortion possibly killing them?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Such as the woman in Margaret Sanger’s Epiphany over Birth Control article who died from a self induced abortion because she couldn’t handle another child. Of course there is always the possibility that child birth could also kill them. Abortion seems a lot more risky though, especially being illegal like it was. Abortion clinics surely couldn’t be regulated and keep safe because there weren’t any governmental policies or standards to be enforced. I would much rather have the child and give it up for an abortion, quietly, than risk dying from a painful abortion that could lead to a deadly infection. That’s just my opinion though; maybe they were too afraid of being pregnant in the first place to think straight and logically. Even though Ms. Rubin thinks that this is a “real clinic” and it “alleviated a tremendous amount of anxiety and fear,” (216) obviously it wasn’t much of facility because she did get “a low-grade infection,” (217). I know that she was in hast to rid herself of being pregnant, but you would think that she would be smarter about her decisions. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She obviously wasn’t going to tell her family, as Rubin describes, “I didn’t have any support from my parents,” (216), possibly because being a sexual women was taboo? Even if that was so, the least they could do was help her or were families that unsupportive of their daughters? I really can’t see a father and, partially, a mother abandoning their child in such a desperate situation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Morgan above, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I feel pretty much the opposite way about everything she said.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Yes abortion was risky but so was pregnancy and childbirth. This woman was young, unwed, and in school.  If she were to have had the child she would have lost everything in life that she worked so hard for.  She may have been able to have the child quietly and gave it up, but who would have paid for it and where would she have gone? Her parents would have likely shunned her out of their lives, she didn&amp;#039;t have the money, the &amp;quot;father&amp;quot; of the baby didn&amp;#039;t have money. She would have had to take months off of school, and how would she have explained that?  And perhaps she could have gotten an infection from the abortion, but women were not sitting around gabbing about abortions so it&amp;#039;s not like they had first-hand accounts to go off of, just heresay and gossip.  I feel she was not &amp;quot;in hast,&amp;quot; she clearly weighed her options and knew what would have happen if she would have had a baby in her position.  - Christine L&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joanna Rubin’s piece “An Unplanned Pregnancy” was touching and interesting. I think that Rubin was attempting to express the fact that there was regret involved but she did what she thought was right. I agree with Christine, here is a young woman who did not love the person that impregnated her, in her first year of Grad school. If she did love him, she “might have kept it” (217) but she didn’t.  Which is a better choice, to live a life with a child and a husband whom you do not love and resent? Or go to any lengths, in this case, Puerto Rico, to have an abortion. She admits that this was a hard decision with consequences.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It also seems that her personal doctor was not completely opposed to her choice “When I found out I was pregnant, I went to see a doctor and he had told me to come and see him afterwards”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (217). He even gave her antibiotics. I was wondering how often doctors helped patients who went to have abortions out of the country or illegally? –Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name,&amp;quot; Betty Friedan, 1963==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; This was an age of single family homes, of cars instead of public transportation, of cleaning quietly in the kitchen rather than enjoying a laugh with the other women over lunch at the defense plant like the women interviewed in the video we watched. These women&amp;#039;s lives revolved around a home that for a significant portion of the day she shared with perhaps a mildly communicative infant or no one at all if her children were old enough to be in school. Sure she went out to do the shopping and interacted with people through that, but she always ultimately returned to her empty house that constantly reminded her of further chores she needed to accomplish. And no matter how many friends women did have, they&amp;#039;d still feel isolated in that they couldn&amp;#039;t share with their friends what was truly on their minds, thinking themselves all alone in their feelings of desperation and boredom. It&amp;#039;s telling that just a simple acknowledgment that friends shared similar thoughts could cause women to break down and cry &amp;quot;just to know they are not alone.&amp;quot; -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann raised an important point about Betty Freidan’s excerpt, to know that you were not alone in how you felt about your duties as a wife, mother, and the home.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Women were facing societal implications that if you felt that you wanted more or even a career that this meant that you could not be worthy or could not fulfill those duties. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If you step outside of those roles of the home, does that make you less able to maintain them?  In the 1950’s, you were looked down upon if you did, did it make you less of a mother and wife?  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It became a moral dilemma.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I play the scene in my mind, the husband saying, “Oh dear, why are you not happy, you have more than any woman could ever want?” (no pressure here.)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women at this time were dealing with such an immense problem. Prior to WWII, they had obtained universal suffrage, and then more independence through the work place while their husbands were in combat. Suddenly, when their husbands returned their extensive independence disappeared as well. Many would would have been scrutinized by their husbands or their peers for complaining about the lifestyle changes they encountered. It is not surprising to see them internalize many of their doubts and fears regarding their complacency or position in society. Over time, it is evident that the problem that women encountered disappeared, and women began to obtain more control of their own lives and leverage in society. Friedan was a pioneer in exploring communication and bonds between women.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this passage very interesting and thought provoking.  Women had a brief glimpse of life in the workplace during World War II, but when the men came home, they again assumed their traditional role as a housewife.  This excerpt mainly revolves around the question: Is this all our lives&amp;#039; will amount to?  Many obviously wanted more than what a housewife provided and some felt almost incomplete doing the monotonous work of daily chores.  However, I think now, especially after doing my interview that this work could not only be difnified but also quite challenging.  The person who I interviewed said her daughter in law is a stay at home mom and she works harder than anybody she knows.  I expect these women to wish for more after many of them had jobs for years, but their work can be just as hard as many respects as what the men are doing. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Psychiatrist Marynia F. Farnham and Sociologist Ferdinand Lundberg Denounce the Modern Woman as the &amp;quot;Lost Sex,&amp;quot; 1947 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oy vey, these women are something, aren’t they? Much like the women of the 19th century who went out into the public to tell women to get back into the house where they belonged, we’ve got a psychiatrist and a sociologist telling women that they shouldn’t have jobs. It just blows the mind. According to them, women who work are neurotic and unfeminine, and they ignore their family duties for their jobs and became resentful towards men. Are they speaking from personal experience, because, you know, they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;have jobs themselves&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of “feminine relinquishment” was interesting.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;It seems strange that if you had a career outside of the home, that meant you lost you feminine qualities.  But when there was an ideal perception of family, that locked women in those roles, it made it difficult to go anywhere else without consequences.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  I never thought about it as woman were living “dangerously” if women tried to juggle both work and home.  Everyone seems to suffer for the wife’s aspirations.  Who would want to leave the home if they felt they would destroy their family? &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I think that Farnham and Lundberg were vividly describing the moral dilemmas women were facing if they tried to work and take care of the family.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these women were quite bold in some of their statements.  I thought that it was interesting how they equated women working outside the home as becoming more masculine, as MHimes above me stated.  They seem to believe that a woman could not possibly be feminine if working outside the home, which caused an internal struggle in women who worked while having household responsibilities, like a husband and children.  They seem to really find danger to a woman&amp;#039;s feminity if she is engaged in work, which in turn negatively affects men.  They appear as advocates of the this new modern cult of domesticity that was emerging in the post war period, it seems. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At first glance, these writers describe the &amp;quot;Modern Woman&amp;quot; of 1947, as one who appears to have her own destiny within her grasp.  She is now conflicted however, because she has more responsibility; to the home, children, and to work. I found this article interesting because the writers argue the modern woman of their time is now struggling to retain femininity because she is in the &amp;quot;dangerous position of having to live one part of her life on the masculine level, [and] another on the feminine.&amp;quot;(413) Is the need to be equal to men and their accomplishments what caused this rivalry? I never really thought of how damaging the social and psychological barriers were in Post-War War II America. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I understand women proved what they were capable of, but what I am still curious about is how hard was it for women to switch back to dependence of their husbands when they knew they were just as capable in the workforce.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; From the videos we saw in class, I gathered that many women found pride that they could do skilled labor, but this article brings up a good perspective I think. From my interpretation the perspective is that women&amp;#039;s success has to be achieved through a balance of dependence and independence in their role in the household. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Just imagine being in that courtroom. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Middle-class, supposedly meek and compliant little housewives and mothers with their pristine white gloves being accused of Communist activity; even if they did have Communist sympathies, no one would believe it. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Much like the women of the 19th century reform movement, they justified being involved in politics with their concerns as wives and mothers. And much like the reform women, they embraced and contradicted the ideal image of femininity at the same time. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the HUAC to be extremely hypocritical. On one hand Ethel Baron Taylor is complaining about how &amp;quot;women are not in positions of power and they have no role in policy-making&amp;quot; (218) , and on the other she chooses to get her point across by portraying her organization in a way that makes them seem submissive and powerless. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Even though she is fighting to obtain more power for women through this group, she inadvertently still relies on men. It particularly disturbed me when she waited for a man to help her out of the police van after being arrested; If Taylor can&amp;#039;t handle a five foot jump without a man guiding her, how are we supposed to take her cause seriously?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Anna K Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I saw WSP as more sly and manipulative.  They knew that the most effective way to get a woman&amp;#039;s voice heard was to play up those female stereotypes, especially in court&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  No judge would throw out a bunch of sweet women who weren&amp;#039;t doing anything wrong!  And they couldn&amp;#039;t go militant or get too forceful with their protests.  That kind of thing tends to irritate and annoy people rather than make them agreeable to the cause.  I just think that if you&amp;#039;re going to go with that method, you can&amp;#039;t complain about being treated like a stereotype afterwards.  So, Taylor complaining about wanting to be treated equally while manipulating the female stereotypes is definitely hypocritical.  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with CBrau. I love the women of the WSP! I found them hilarious and very manipulative. These women obviously knew exactly how to get attention and to use there femininity against political figures to buy for attention. But did these women really think that just because they were women nothing would happen to them? “They’re not going to electrocute me, They’re not going to shoot me,” (218) said Taylor while she was deciding to cross the street or not. Did she think this because she was a woman and surely men wouldn’t hurt her? I guess the stereotypes of that generation weren’t to hurt women, even if they were criminals? They were so outspoken though, even when in the presence of court, “we would present her with a bouquet, and we would applaud,” (220) but they weren’t thrown out of court. I wonder if in the decades before if they were even allowed in court, much less speak out. It appears to me that they were mainly a spectacle looking for attention towards their cause, even if it endangered them. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was charming.  I absolutely love the visual of these women in their pretty little dresses with matching shoes and handbag, white gloves, hats and perfectly coiffed hair being brought in to testify before Congress.  I am no anti-war activist but I think these women had the backbone to petition their government to change the course of history, all before they had to get home and prepare dinner for their families and help their children with their homework.  And they still wanted to be treated as ladies, even while they were being hauled off to jail.  What irony. - EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with their political opinions, but I&amp;#039;m just saying...their personality would be a good thing to have. Their spunk would continue to entertain people.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Star Struck,&amp;quot; Vicki L. Ruiz ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All these articles are important in our understanding of the past and how it continues to shape the present. However, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found this article in particular to be especially important because generations later the poverty and degradation of Mexican Americans is still the reality. The Mexican American women from the 1920&amp;#039;s to 1950&amp;#039;s written about in this article could easily be Mexican American women today.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  All the issues they faced in the first half of the twentieth century are the same battles they fight today in the beginning of the twenty-first century, with little to no improvement. Perhaps it is because &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;unlike other immigrant groups, the Latina community continues to emigrate and despite having been an essential part of our nation for an extended time, they are perceived to be the “new guys.”&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  -- Kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article could easily be related to today and how women are percieved or told how they should be percieved in the media. While I feel that many immigrant groups wanted to promote their culture, especially the Mexican Americans through language and traditions, the children of immigrant parents wanted to assimilate into American culture, and the leading way in California was through &amp;quot;the public fascination with Hollywood.&amp;quot;(367). Today, things have still not changed infact I believe we as a society have become more fascinated with Hollywood and how it defines America, I cannot even count how many times I have heard the story about Sandra Bullock and her husband and very little on world affairs or even the healthcare bill. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Indian Relocation, Wilma Mankiller==&lt;br /&gt;
The hardships that Indians peoples faced throughout the 19th and 20th century had clear impacts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This experience by one Indian girl who was forced to leave her town in Oklahoma for California was heartbreaking.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  This girl had to endure leaving her entire life, at the expense of the US Government who thought they were offering “a wonderful opportunity for Indian families to get great jobs, obtain good educations for their kids and, once and for all, leave poverty behind” (212).  This girls life did not get easier, but harder, emotionally and financially.  It is a clear example of how racial minorities were again, uprooted from their lives.  Wilma explains how she was teased because of her last name and how she knew she was clearly different from the other children, who knew as well.  This must have had lasting impacts on her as she grew and matured. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The history of Native Americans deserves just as much credit as African Americans or Women&amp;#039;s history. This story of Indian relocation is just one of the many very sad experiences of what  United States policy has put them through.  The sadist part of it all is that they were here first! This particular story shows that even in the 1950s the US was still relocating 60,000 Indians thinking we had the right to &amp;quot;mainstream &amp;quot; them into Urban areas. After reading this depressing story it make me feel extremely grateful that Native Americans are no longer treated in this way and made me realize if anyone in the USA should be the most proud to be American, it should be all the Native Americans left today that still retain their cultures. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as with the Japanese internment camps during World War II, I feel like the US government was good at alienating various racial/ethnic groups in America. The Indians had already been forcibly removed once (The Trail of Tears) but to do it again is just horrible. The fact that the government changed it mind all of a sudden was both disturbing to the American Indian way of life, but also scarred them emotionally and in many other ways, which is similar to what abratchi said above. What is most awful is how the Mankiller family had so much trouble adapting.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; How could the government just take the Indians from their old way of life and drop them into bustling urban/industrial cities, where they have no idea what to do, how to act, and are seen as aliens to the country, even though they were Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was sad to read about how the girls were made fun of at school, and as a result they &amp;quot;sat up late every night reading aloud to each other to get rid of our accents.&amp;quot; (P. 214). These girls were so ashamed of their ancestry, which was even sadder. Why was it so necessary to assimilate different cultures into American culture? Why couldn&amp;#039;t white Americans just simply coexist with minority groups and accept one another for their differences instead of displacing them physically as well as emotionally? Wilma Mankiller used the word &amp;quot;alienation&amp;quot; which I think is a perfect word to describe this situation. These Indians were alienated from their homes, culture and just life in general and the worst part of all of it was that this relocation didn&amp;#039;t help the government in any way. So in the end, both the government and the Indians lost. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This line really caught my attention:  &amp;quot;He (Wilma&amp;#039;s father) must have honestly believed that in a distant city he could provide a better life for his children, with all the modern amenities&amp;quot; (p. 212).  Interesting, considering Wilma and her family were very poor and I&amp;#039;m assuming isolated from modern civilization at Mankiller Flats.  So how did Wilma&amp;#039;s father know about modern civilization and the chances it offered?  From talking to the BIA?  From going to Boarding School?  From working?  Or perhaps it really was their poverty that convinced him they needed to move and try for a new life (despite the risks and separation from home).  --  CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Letter to the Editor of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039; from an African American Lesbian, 1957==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The issue of appearance and whether or not minority groups should dress according to the standards of “the dominant social group” was interesting here.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Conforming to their standards might be a way for a lesbian (or an African American or any other minority group) to prove that she was “normal” and that her sexuality should not be a determining factor of her standing in society.  On the other hand, not conforming to these standards would be a way to say “I don’t care what you think.”  The writer seems to think it shouldn’t matter either way, as she expresses  the hope that “someday…the ‘discreet’ Lesbian will not turn her head on the streets at the sight of the ‘butch’ strolling hand in hand with her friend in their trousers and definitive haircuts” (422).  It’s something modern lesbians could identify with, as there are many women for whom appearance is still a big concern, as they do not want the stereotype of the “manly” lesbian to be the only thing others think of.  - Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Letter to the editor of The Ladder was very interesting.  I agree with Alice on many points. I was also intrigued by her account of the struggle that women faced in general, whether they were homosexual or not. She explains “Women, like other oppressed groups of one kind or another, have particularly had to pay a price for the intellectual impoverishment that the second class status imposed on us for centuries” (421). It must have been comforting for lesbian women to have these publications out there.  As  MP explained in the preface to the chapter, The Ladder was the first American lesbian publication. Upon further research, I found that The Ladder was the first nationally distributed lesbian publication in the United States and was edited by Phyllis Lyon, co founder of Daughters of Bilitis, a lesbian organization. As the writer of the letter noted, this publication was “a fine elementary step in a rewarding direction” (421). It seems like a publication such as The Ladder was a step forward in bringing the lesbian community together while portraying a positive image of lesbian women to the public, something that was beyond taboo at the time. -Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==African American Pauli Murray Explains Why Negro Girls Stay Single, 1947==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece a mix of saddening, isolating, and devastating. I felt like there was no hope at all for the African American woman in any aspect of life, especially in finding love. She could aspire to better herself and get an education, but wouldn’t be able to find a job that would pay her equal to white women. She could look for a husband and she wouldn’t find one. This must have been the harshest reality to find; that African American just were not available and, those that were, did not want to marry her type of a woman. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;She “often has a potential earning power far beyond the range of the majority of available singe males-a social handicap if she wants marriage,” (416).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;man’s partner making more than him must have been emasculating.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Men did not want to be subordinate to women in any way or in any race, as history has shown us; he always wanted to be the breadwinner for the family. “He is the victim of constant frustration in his role as a male because socially he is subordinate to the white women although he is trained to act as a member of the dominate sex,” (417). African American men were already seen as of lesser value than white women, and yet to be dominate in their own race. How could they be dominate while they were lesser in society than white women, less educated than African American women, and brought home less money to support their families? Because African American men were so emotionally broken by their place in the hierarchy of society as well as their role as African American men, women had no chance to find a strong male partner. Without such a partner or the potential to find one, I would feel isolated in society too. -Morgan M&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reminded me so much of this wonderful non-fiction piece called &amp;quot;The Ghetto Girls&amp;#039; Guide to Dating and Romance&amp;quot; by Sonja Livingston. Check it out. ANYWAYS  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I also heard echoes of the &amp;quot;double burden&amp;quot; idea of being both black and a woman:  &amp;quot;the Negro woman finds herself at the bottom of the economic and social scale.&amp;quot;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I imagine that Murray&amp;#039;s article was pretty darn controversial at the time--she talks unabashedly about the failings of black men, throwing her lot in with ostracized women who have spoken out with similar opinions. She makes a bold call to arms, and I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how that was taken. I&amp;#039;d imagine there was a lot of hate mail involved. --Sarah Smethurst&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-24T17:45:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression.  This family moved to Detroit due to the country&amp;#039;s massive mobilization and hopefully a job.  I think their experience there was nothing like they expected.  They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status.  But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work.  Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring.  The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was &amp;quot;adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room.&amp;quot;  I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living.  Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-24T17:38:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it&amp;#039;s almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable &amp;quot;Rosie&amp;quot; to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It&amp;#039;s amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it&amp;#039;d be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman.  She was able to make more money than she had before the War.  Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child.  I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities.   -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job&amp;quot; (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today&amp;#039;s understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it&amp;#039;s easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply &amp;quot;didn&amp;#039;t click&amp;quot; for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn&amp;#039;t someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II&amp;#039;s new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family&amp;#039;s heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it&amp;#039;s not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that &amp;quot;she&amp;#039;d never had the time&amp;quot; to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It&amp;#039;s easy to see how real-life women in Gertie&amp;#039;s situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Doll maker&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of  what they wanted their life to be like.  I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage.  Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted.  As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages.    -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine.  Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women&amp;#039;s Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were &amp;quot;perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater&amp;quot; (pg. 375) was on to something. It&amp;#039;s noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to &amp;quot;less exhausting&amp;quot; positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army.  “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt for these Japanese-American people.  There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a terrible time in American History.  We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor.  The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps.  This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S.  In continuing with Morgan&amp;#039;s mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower.  These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad.  The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-18T01:25:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women&amp;#039;s resistance to accept charity.  While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters.  Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women&amp;#039;s sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about &amp;quot;who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family&amp;quot; (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing &amp;quot;enough&amp;quot; on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as &amp;quot;needing a job&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;frivolous&amp;quot;? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post.  It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace.  Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support.  Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn&amp;#039;t they.  Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place.  Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when &amp;quot;Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood.&amp;quot; (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don&amp;#039;t support the logic that a woman&amp;#039;s place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved.  Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives.  It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary.  It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control.  However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression.  How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?  Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books.  It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics.  It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition.  Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you&amp;#039;re already struggling to survive. It&amp;#039;s stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes &amp;quot;it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility&amp;quot; it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn&amp;#039;t afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn&amp;#039;t refrain from having them. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south.  While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).  I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn&amp;#039;t qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-18T01:17:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work.  LeSueur describes women who &amp;quot;sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in&amp;quot; (146).  One can really feel the desperation in these women&amp;#039;s lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece  shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment.  Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity.  Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc.  I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn&amp;#039;t find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression.  I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.  I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat.  She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them.  That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily.  The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says &amp;quot;if she&amp;#039;s proud then she starves silently&amp;quot; (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today&amp;#039;s societal norms.--MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating.  It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. People were not sitting around passively going through the Depressio, they were lining up in hords to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all. LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==&lt;br /&gt;
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn&amp;#039;t believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can&amp;#039;t afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur&amp;#039;s writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don&amp;#039;t want to admit that they haven&amp;#039;t achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn&amp;#039;t the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are.  (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters &amp;quot;were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action&amp;quot; (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn&amp;#039;t know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women&amp;#039;s resistance to accept charity.  While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters.  Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women&amp;#039;s sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren&amp;#039;t working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women &amp;quot;are not good mothers and housekeepers&amp;quot; (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about &amp;quot;who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family&amp;quot; (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing &amp;quot;enough&amp;quot; on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as &amp;quot;needing a job&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;frivolous&amp;quot;? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==&lt;br /&gt;
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn&amp;#039;t stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change.  Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home.  She was knowledgeable of how the system worked.  It was no surprise that they took on this role.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money.  I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm.  It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm.  She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting.  In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.  I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family.  -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when &amp;quot;Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood.&amp;quot; (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don&amp;#039;t support the logic that a woman&amp;#039;s place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the &amp;quot;Slave Markets&amp;quot; Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market.  This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression.  Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce.  Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery&amp;#039;s end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery.  While domestic servitude was still  one of the most common jobs for all  women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job.  The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece.  Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay.  I think the desperation of the depression reveals women&amp;#039;s willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money.  Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for &amp;quot;the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women&amp;quot; (350).  Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman&amp;#039;s domestic service would be labeled a &amp;quot;slave market.&amp;quot; Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved.  Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives.  It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary.  It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338).  Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week&amp;#039;s article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control.  However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression.  How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?  Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards.  - J Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books.  It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies. It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics.  It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition.  Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex. It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you&amp;#039;re already struggling to survive. It&amp;#039;s stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes &amp;quot;it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility&amp;quot; it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn&amp;#039;t afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn&amp;#039;t allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn&amp;#039;t refrain from having them. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s. Mollie&amp;#039;s life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this. Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south.  While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).  I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.  I found Carlotta&amp;#039;s family&amp;#039;s generosity amazing during such a rough time.  Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money.  They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate.  The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays.  Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community.  While I&amp;#039;m sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them.  And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity.  And they didn&amp;#039;t oppose to having a picture taken of them!  Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn&amp;#039;t actually the case?  Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it?  Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women.  Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn&amp;#039;t qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-16T01:11:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;EXTRA CREDIT:  Focusing only on the primary source readings, discuss the context within which one or two of these documents were created: What were the goals of the people writing?  Who were they writing for?  Consider the circumstances of their creation.  How would people at the time have received those ideas or claims and why?   (Think broadly; some people would like some ideas that others would not.) &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith==&lt;br /&gt;
Since we didn&amp;#039;t get a chance to spend time on them in class, you can listen to some of their music [http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/2010/03/13/ma-rainey-and-bessie-smith/ here]. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks Taylor! - christine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the phrase “hope in a jar” (P.360) was interesting because it showed how women depended so much on make up to bring them more importance in the world. They also expected make-up to make life smoother for them, bringing them new opportunities. So many acts, like using make up that were previously looked down upon, were suddenly accepted when society saw that movie stars/high class people would use cosmetics. Society and culture was so easily influenced by outside factors such as movies. I think during this time, cosmetics created a false sense of “the self.&amp;quot; “A woman’s personal success relied on her appearance.” (P.355) What about her abilities, her work ethic, etc? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wonder what the guys in the class think about makeup in this class. I personally don&amp;#039;t like makeup, but that might be more of a personal opinion reflecting my upbringing and interpretations of media. I suppose the question is--if makeup is not linked to prostitution anymore, then what is, because for some reason I think that makeup still represents that oldest of professions to some degree. I have no idea how looking &amp;quot;exotic&amp;quot; is supposed to be less offensive...I don&amp;#039;t really understand the WASP middle class fascination with all things different--is this a new development or something that arose around this time period? I like Mary Ann&amp;#039;s interpretation of the rise of makeup, highlighting feminine features when increasing numbers of women were entering the public sphere. So my question is whether or not the rising popularity of makeup indicative of a new level of freedom experienced by women or something that more firmly entrenched and highlighted their separateness from men? I suppose this goes back to the arguments between the feminists and social feminists insofar as making a truly equal society or preserving protective legislation... -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why would Dr. Frederick &amp;quot;of course...tried to explain it away?&amp;quot; Didn&amp;#039;t Jane Addams, Louise DeKoven Brown and other Chicago reformers blame overwork, commercialized recreation and alcohol for &amp;quot;bringing out natural yearnings and instincts that THEY preferred to see repressed&amp;quot;? Why would these women want to see these instincts repressed? Wouldn&amp;#039;t a prominent woman such as Addams OF COURSE have approved of open sexual practices? And why would Dr. Frederick have bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex? Mosher&amp;#039;s study wasn&amp;#039;t common nor was it published, so why are we assuming today that it was a common thing to ask women about their attitudes towards sex a century ago? And didn&amp;#039;t the Mosher survey find that some women didn&amp;#039;t have an interest in sex? I&amp;#039;m sure that women&amp;#039;s history is a contentious topic but objectivity needs to be maintained and we need to make sure that we don&amp;#039;t project our modern day assumptions into history.  -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Um, no one’s assuming that it was common practice for women to be interviewed about sex at that time, or really for anyone to be interviewed about it at that time. Nor do I see anyone projecting modern day assumptions. Frederick’s suggesting that “sexual desire is entirely absent in a much larger number of women than is generally supposed&amp;quot; (291) and that any woman who expresses real sexual desire is pretty much a nymphomaniac. I simply pointed out that, despite the impropriety of asking such questions at the time and in particular coming from a man, if he had done &amp;#039;&amp;#039;actual&amp;#039;&amp;#039; scientific research, such as the interviews conducted by Mosher (and from the samples we saw, all of the women often found sex agreeable), that he would have probably disregarded the answers and tried to explain them away because it didn’t jive with his and society’s beliefs about women. A lot of people probably would have done the same. Yet, clearly the Mosher survey shows that there were some women of the period who were more open to sex and recognized that they enjoyed it or even that it was necessary to their health. So, sure, maybe there were women like Jane Addams who preferred to see sex repressed, but there were also women who didn’t want to repress their sexual desires. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Taylor here. The Mosher survey is an example of dialogue beginning to open, but certainly not the norm.  The doctor was not going door to door asking all women these questions; this was just a small sample group. That being said a survey such as this not only reveals that women at this time did harbor sexual desire, it also illustrates that types of marriages that they had. Though some of the women believed that sex was primarily for the purpose of procreation and male sexual satisfaction, others felt that it was a key component to the marriage. This was not a popular conversation at the time so I do not see how any of the former posts were projecting modern ideals onto the study.   –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses Discuss the Ideals and Problems of Modern Marriage, 1930==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manasses stressed the importance of the sexual relationship between the husband and wife, in order to obtain a fulfilled and happy marriage.  Their goals were to make sex education more available to the “average” person and not limited to only professional classes and to show the importance of women’s own active participation in the physical relationship of marriage.  They acknowledged that women had recognized themselves as sexual beings in this modern era and needed to be educated to fulfill those roles in a marriage of mutual companionship.  I think they were writing for those who restricted this information from getting out.  They are showing that by restricting this information that they are impairing (what they called handicapping) women from obtaining that fulfilled happy marriage and encouraging personality conflicts by allowing ignorance on the subject of sex.  In general, I don’t think people knew how to react to this information.  They probably felt it was needed and wanted but some were afraid to openly acknowledge this but secretly may have wanted to obtain it.  There were religious reasons that encouraged people to reject this in fear of being immoral and inappropriate.  Some women may have been comfortable with the rigidity of women’s role whereas others felt that it allowed women a  more equal partner in the marriage.  Blanchard and Manasses were saying that by educating women, they would meet the needs of their own sexual desires and expectations and being more apt to satisfying her partner.  These women are liberal in their thoughts on pre-marital sex and emphasized that one should try their partners out sexually before marriage to see if they would be compatible.  I don’t think that this was generally accepted though it wouldn’t necessarily mean that it wasn’t being practiced.  In the eyes of these two Psychologists, the modern marriage required a larger emphasis on the physical side and this made the importance of educating women about sex and contraceptives even more important.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carlton C. Fredericks, M.D.’s assessment of what he calls “Nymphomania” was absurd. He even goes as far to propose that women who view sex or masturbation as gratifying automatically classify them as perverts. It seems that any sexual expression that he deemed as improper was in some way perverse. It was such a contrast to the Mosher study because Fredericks views a women’s sexual appetite as “insane or mildly insane”(291) where Mosher is finding that many women feel it is necessary to carry on a healthy marriage. It is interesting as well because the Mosher&amp;#039;s study took place at around the same time, the duality between these two school of thought are amazing! –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If there was one article I read out loud incredulously as I forced my roommate to listen, it was this one. Fredericks gets the Women&amp;#039;s History prize for Official Idiot, and I hope he was recognized as such during his time, although I doubt it. His accusations are not only wildly speculative and libelous, but also unfounded and unsupported by neutral documentation. Even if you took out the ridiculous subject material, his disturbing lack of evidence and wild examples would make for an extremely weak argument.  --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder if I am finding this thread to be a bit ridiculous because I am a male or if there is just a little hint of a bias in peoples&amp;#039; interpretations of this primary source. First, unless I am mistaken and if I am, then someone please correct me, but I had thought that masturbation by anyone, males or females, was considered a perversion of sorts during this time period. Second, did Mosher find anything contrary to what Frederick did? I don&amp;#039;t remember reading any of Mosher&amp;#039;s own interpretations of the interview results, the reading is just the interview questions and answers--none of Mosher&amp;#039;s own analysis there, unless I forgot something. Differences between results? Where was Frederick based out of? Were Californians more liberal back then as they are now? Even if they weren&amp;#039;t, geographical considerations have to be taken into account before a comparison can be made. Why is Frederick&amp;#039;s study less convincing? Does it not represent the popular AND professional understanding of femininity and sexuality at the time? And before we dismiss his claim that the numbers and variations of practices were too various to include and such, this was published in a journal, and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t include whatever raw data he might or might not have collected. Again, why was Frederick an idiot--for publishing something that was in line with the prevalent medical opinion concerning this issue? Same argument for the other complaints about Frederick. I&amp;#039;m not defending Frederick as a person, I am only arguing for trying to retain some semblance of objectivity when reading primary documents and trying to put them in the context of their time period rather than impose our own conceptions onto history. -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that the people finding Frederick’s report ridiculous do recognize that it would have been in line with traditional medical assumptions of the day. You’re right that the survey has none of Mosher’s own analysis, but I think the answers (at least the ones we were able to read and that’s key for anything we say regarding it) speak for themselves. All of the women found sex agreeable, except for one woman who found it agreeable “usually.” All of them said there were times when they desired sex, and some of them said the ideal would be to have sex when both the husband and wife wanted it. The idea of a woman actually &amp;#039;&amp;#039;wanting&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sex, and not being a nympho, is the complete opposite of Frederick’s report. So, to answer your question, yes, the survey contradicts Frederick, and that’s putting it lightly. Reading the Mosher survey right before Frederick’s report really highlights his lack of evidence for his claims, and maybe that’s why people were reacting so harshly towards him in their comments. Wanting scientific evidence isn’t even out of line with the time period either. Frankly, for all of your talk about looking at primary sources within their context, I think you’re ignoring the Mosher survey within its context. To me, the survey (in the parts we read) suggests that perhaps Frederick’s assumptions about women and their sexual desire, or lack thereof, weren’t as prevalent in actual society as believed. Perhaps public assumptions about sex didn’t completely match up with personal assumptions about sex, if that makes any sense. Unfortunately, we don’t have many surveys like Mosher’s. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, Taylor I agree. The Fredericks report seems quite frankly, his opinion of women. I understand that this was a popular notion held by many medical professionals at the time, but he shows no objectivity, nor does he express any scientific evidence to back up his claim. The Mosher study, though it does not provide and analysis of the subject matter at the end, still demonstrates how WOMEN viewed sex and sexual satisfaction at the time. The Mosher survey is a sociological study where as the Fredericks Report is an editorialized account. I think when comparing these two primary sources, we have to remember that fact. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
This was a speech given by Carrie Chapman Catt, to the League of Women&amp;#039;s Voters right after the ninteenth amendment was passed and women were given the right to vote.  Now that they have this right, they need to excercise it and become involved in politics and this speech is intended to do just that.  The context for this speech is very important because if it was made before women had the right to vote, it would not carry as much weight.  However, now that they have this right, they can take immediate action and get involved politically.  I think in this slight time of confusion of what exactly to do with this huge, new important right, this speech can help give women much needed direction.  -afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I concur (big word) with EFritz with the acknowledgement that Catt was fully aware of the impending struggles of women. She recognizes the difficulties women will now face as voters. Though they have the right to vote, it does not inherently mean that everything else they desired, namely equality with men, will be achieved. Though suffrage was obtained it does not bring about total reconstruction in societal norms, which have been in place for centuries. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe that at the bottom of this article there is a very simple goal for Carrie Chapman Catt, to get recognition from the world of the actual substantiality of women. Since that is a rather large, ambiguous, and (considering it still has not been a completed goal)impossible goal she had to first start aiming that goal toward the women she expected to lead the fight to accomplish it. Although it almost seems as though Catt is talking to women she had already convinced to join her in the fight towards suffrage, I personally believe she is attempting to persuade women who may not understand that they are being oppressed by the lack of societal recognition for their greatness. She is trying to inform them that they were born great women and should fight to be recognized for that, even if that fight means going against the crowd that would rather the women would just shut up and deal with their place in life. I think the people who she wasn&amp;#039;t trying to persuade with this message would take it the same way that people in today&amp;#039;s society react when they&amp;#039;re reminded with the continued inequality of Women in places like the workforce; They&amp;#039;d either not care, not understand why anyone would bother to care, care a lot, or justify the reasoning for the inequalities on arbitrary facts (like women being capable of getting pregnant meaning that they will use that capability to miss out on working and lose the company money, which is why they aren&amp;#039;t paid as much). On the other side, people hearing this argument from the other side might find an invigoration for the cause so great that they dedicate their life to changing and fighting for the rights of women. Men might read this article and realize that they have no justification within society for the woman to still be dealing with the same fight she&amp;#039;d been dealing with throughout the entirety of the existence of the United States. That reaction, however, I feel is entirely unlikely and considering the lack of women&amp;#039;s equality still existing today to a great extent, it probably was unlikely. Carrie Chapman Catt, however, probably felt that she had to write this article because she had to express to her followers, potential followers and dissenters that she wasn&amp;#039;t done fighting just because women finally got the right to vote. To her, that was just the first step. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Carrie Chapman Catt gave this cautionary speech to women as a way to remind them that they should not forget what they fought so hard for. She wants women to use their heads and think for themselves. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to vote how their husbands vote just because. She doesn&amp;#039;t want them to only discuss politics within their homes and only influence their husbands. She wants women to realize that just voting is not enough, but they have to step into the political arena and voice their opinions. I think this probably did not go over well with many people at the time, especially conservative men. Just like in the first western states that gave women suffrage, men were probably expecting women to just follow their lead in political opinion. I&amp;#039;m sure they were surprised and a bit distraught to learn that Carrie Chapman Catt was directing women to learn about politics themselves, formulate their own opinions, and then fight to get their ideas and views out there. --Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Of the two arguments that Alice Hamilton and Doris Stevens gave I found Steven’s debate to be more influential than Hamilton’s. Steven’s was very straight forward about what she wanted, especially in listing what the Equal Rights Amendment would achieve for women. The list itself is eye-catching because it isn’t part of a paragraph, a radical move by a radical woman I suppose. I think that Doris is the epitome of what younger women didn’t want to be like, as Bromley further suggestes in her article. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Obviously the debate that appeared in The Forum in 1924 would have been written for people who were able to obtain copies-mostly white, middle class, men and some women. Both sides were defending their positions of whether to have an Equal Rights Amendment or not. Doris Stevens basically believed that suffrage alone did not give women full rights as humans and needed more protection of the law and equality. She clearly defined the rights she thought women were due including &amp;quot;Equal Citizenship rights&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Equal pay for equal rights&amp;quot; (125). Like Morgan, I don&amp;#039;t find Hamilton&amp;#039;s argument nearly as convincing. I may also be biased, however, because I still find it very unusual for women to not desire the same amount of rights that men had or think that having more rights might even be harmful for women or cause more problems. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of both authors, Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton, were to appeal to their affiliations and to persuade readers that their certain cause was more just than the others.  Whether this was accomplished is debatable however. I can see why some women, either part of the National Women’s Party or the League of Women’s Voters, may have read this debate and changed side based upon it. Not being part of either I can see both side’s points and the validity behind them. The circumstances under which the debate was written was at a time of the 1920’s when women had achieved suffrage and were looking for something else that they could fight for, as well as bond together over. Most women after being given the right to vote, as well as Congress, didn’t see anything else that women needed. There was so much that could be gained by an Equal Rights Amendment, but the younger generation seemed unwilling to fight for it. Even the white, middle class women who had always had issues with something political or male oriented. I think that the arguments presented between both women were viewed as a good show, but nothing of great importance. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz, &amp;quot;Sexual Geography &amp;amp; Gender Economy&amp;quot; in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today the women described in this article would be a combination of a prostitute and a “sugar-baby” to a “sugar-daddy”.  Like others I found “dating,” “pick-ups,” “occasional prostitution,” and “temporary alliances” (329) as odd names to give to these casual sexual encounters, as if they were nothing at all. I doubt that these women thought anything of it and let it become a way of life though. Instead of going out and finding better jobs or more work, they fell back onto the notion of being a woman could get them what they wanted without the work. “If I did not have a man, I could not get along on my wages.” (330) -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What&amp;#039;s behind the three different versions of the sexual revolution? Flappers vs independent new women vs working-class rowdy girls. Is there one single interpretation that can explain the revolution or do all three have some merit? Also interesting, it seems as though some people now see prostitution as a good thing, if not a means to get by economically. I recall that most people were shocked and upset when reading about the Chinese prostitutes during the late nineteenth century...so what changed that makes people more comfortable with this idea? The seeming lack of organization insofar as the kind of bookkeeping that we saw with the bills of sales of Chinese prostitutes? Does the lack of that kind of documentation naturally imply that women were no longer coerced into prostitution, even if it was to just get by once in a while? Or were there pimps, perhaps some of the men living with them in these furnished districts that acted in such a capacity but without drawing up bills or contracts since prostitution was illegal now? And if this wasn&amp;#039;t the case, which I suspect might have been in at least some shape or form, perhaps societal pressures from their peers coerced them into prostitution, since apparently if a good looking girl didn&amp;#039;t sell herself she was considered a fool. What&amp;#039;s worse? That kind of social coercion or the kind of legal coercion that we saw in California? -schang&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I found it interesting how &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; felt superior to the older women who had enabled them to lead the comfortable, sociable lifestyles they pursued. They felt no gratitude towards these former suffragettes, only contempt. Is this because they felt stronger than them because of their youth, felt more independent because of their economic independence, or just simply thought they were entitled to all of the rights they had? The answer baffles me. --Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Anna&amp;#039;s question, I think it might have a been a combination of the three. Even today, it is obvious in some cases where youths are ungrateful for what they have been given or the privileges they have been born with. For instance, many Americans view the opportunity to vote as a right, not the privilege it is. The same can be said for the women of this particular era. Simultaneously,  the economic independence that these women were able to benefit from would give them almost a false sense of self. They would not appreciate the labors their mothers had to endure. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I absolutely loved this article because I think it actually represents alot of the ideals that modern women have today. I think it was really progressive for Bromley to talk about women being able to have both a career AND a family, giving equal attention to both. That is the sort of equality that women have been fighting for, the right to be happy. Bromley is saying that women the new woman, if she balances everything correctly, can be very happy. She has the ability to be a professional and still has the ability to be a mom. She doesn&amp;#039;t need to constantly argue that she is as good as a man because she can just simply prove it in her actions. I think its really cool how she sort of brings all the different opinions of what women should be doing together and forms a type of super woman. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My favorite part of this article, other than the ambition of younger women to have a family and a career (as Angie points out) was the reference to war materials. “With a battle-cry still on their lips…still throwing hand grenades,” (128).  This article was written in 1927 and “The Great War” had only ended ten years earlier. I believe that tensions in the Us may have still been raw and that may be the reason for such a reference. Bromley effectively suggests that the 1st and 2nd generation women as battle-hardened veterans. As veterans I would expect them to cold and judgmental toward those that they had fought against, men. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I thought some of the points made by the New Style Feminists were good, I can&amp;#039;t help but feel that their mothers and even grandmothers would be sad to see the flippant way they discussed their struggles and triumphs. They seem to have forgotten that these women fought hard so that they their daughters would not have to. While their argument about creating your own identity instead of fighting to keep your maiden name was valid these new style feminists seemed to have overlooked what was at the core of the feminist movement. It was interesting to see how this article shows the differences between generations. Although the New Style idea of the stereotype of feminism has a cause for angry and embittered women has definitely persevered.--Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goal of Dorothy Bromley’s “Feminist-New Style” article, of 1927, was to differentiate between the three generations of women that were part of the 1920’s era and to emphasize the younger generation. Obviously Bromley was a strong supporter, defender, of the younger generation and was writing to enhance her reasons for disliking the older generations of women. The young women would have received this article whole heartily as a defense against the older generations, as a response to the criticism they had already received.  The older generations probably saw this article as an attack against them and what they had stood for. Possibly an attack on what they had already accomplished insofar as the younger generation not being appreciative of what they had done for them and the freedoms they had created for them.  Bromley’s article was written at the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the sexual revolution of the 1930’s just around the corner, the young generation of women were already showing rebellion towards the traditional behavior of women that was expected. This article may have helped instill in the younger generation that what they were doing was ok and more “modern” women, such as Bromley, understood and accepted them, even if the older generations did not. -Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, I agree with Morgan that perhaps Dorothy Bromley was trying to encourage younger women. I also think that this was a sort of defensive piece as well, though. At the time, men probably were not 100% comfortable with women having their own professional lives and this can be seen as her letting everyone know that the new feminist can balance a family as well as a career. She says things like &amp;quot;she will not, however, live for her job alone&amp;quot; (p. 128) and &amp;quot;nor has she become hostile to the other sex&amp;quot; (p. 129). These statements are comforting to those people that have some crazy idea of a cold-hearted feminist. Perhaps there were a few of them during the suffrage days, but Bromley is trying to convince women AND men that that really is not the case. -- Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anxious mothers were certainly anxious, but who could blame them with a high “maternal and infant” (130) mortality rate.  Like the others who have posted I was quite intrigued by both mother number 2 and number 3. The second mother had, what seemed to me, laughable concerns. I have to remember that women were generally clueless about prenatal care at this point, so I could understand that if you crave something so intensely denying yourself would seem detrimental to the baby, but I was unclear as to why touching your face had anything to do with this. The third mother expressed the most valid concerns of the three. The shear idea of justice in a medical malpractice suit must have seemed so far-fetched at the time, considering that medical malpractices suits are hard to prove today! As the third mother recounted, many of the doctors who claimed to be experts, did not provide adequate care to these mothers in both the pre and post natal area.  The third mothers call for government regulation of hospital practices must have been quite revolutionary at the time, given the fact that many professionals such as doctors were trusted almost blindly. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article shocking, even mildly sad. The desperation of these women to obtain information about their bodies and pregnancy is a stark contrast to today, when all you have to do is log onto the internet to answer any and every question. What is even worse is that I&amp;#039;m sure the postal system did not operate very quickly back then, leaving the women waiting weeks for an answer from the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. However, I liked that the government finally took an interest in women&amp;#039;s concerns and created this branch. It clearly was of service to many women of very diverse backgrounds.--Anna Holman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was really interesting and it was nice to see that the government was giving attention to an area that was obviously in need of federal aid or even just attention. I think sometimes we take for granted how the improvements in modern medicine and healthcare overall have made childbirth significantly safer for women. I was sad to see that the program ended in 1929. Judging by these letters the Bureau was important and helpful to a lot of women. --Emma&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These letters remind us both that women in the 1920s faced very real threats to their lives during pregnancy and childbirth and that the lives of many women throughout the country continued to revolve around their children and families and not political issues like the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment. The authors of the letters want to do everything they can to be good mothers and protect the health of their children and themselves. But it sounds as though discussion of the matters relating to childbearing, despite the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau publications, were largely absent from public discourse and women found themselves very isolated. Perhaps, like birth control, pregnancy and childbirth was seen as too crude to be discussed openly or even among friends, as the author of the second letter indicates no one in her immediate circle cares about her questions. And women&amp;#039;s issues remained low on the list of priorities of doctors, causing many women to suffer health consequences. One would think that in an age that valued motherhood, especially white middle class motherhood, so extensively, that women like those who wrote the letters would have had more options to keep themselves and their children healthy. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mary Ann is right on point.  Women during this time had little access to health care, especially poor and working class women.  I think it is good to keep in mind that it was usually only the mid to upper class who had access to health care and doctors because they could afford for it.  Also, since this was the period of Comstock Laws, women were unable to access information about birth control which made pregnancy a very real, yet fearful thing because of the risks that were involved.  I believe that these women were writing simply out of need for information they could not access elsewhere.  These women display just a snapshot of the reality of pregnancy during this period, while also echoing the concerns of women who were now expected to be completely responsible for both the home and the children.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Ann as well. We do have also remove ourselves from the modern notions of child birth and child rearing and remember that it was quite life threatening.  It was not uncommon for women to have one child after another as well because of the lack of birth control. It must have been very comforting to these women to have a Federal agency such as the Children’s Bureau   to guide them.  In the aftermath of the Great War, I gather that many women turned to Children’s Bureau for help. I looked up some more information on the Bureau on our favorite Wikipedia and found out that it was created by President Taft In 1912 and that Julia Lathrop was the first head of the Bureau. I wonder if Taft appointed her because he thought that as a woman she was more qualified to run the Bureau or if she was simply THE person for the job.  –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excerpt from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; by Nella Larsen ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember reading this scene from &amp;quot;Passing&amp;quot; back when my high school class covered the novel, and I was very intrigued by the notion of passing and the possible reasons for it. The story Clare gives for her own experience in passing in this section seems to be one of convenience and opportunity (raised by white aunts that did not advertise her background), deception (she manipulates her husband to run away with her before her aunts could reveal she was black), and a lot of yearning (she seems to resent her aunt&amp;#039;s treatment of her and other white people, which makes her passing as a white person ironic).     --Sarah Smethurst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Sarah about how intriguing this passage was. After reading this excerpt, I think that Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s topic was something that had crossed the minds of many African Americans at the time. The idea of &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; into another life, just to experience the other side, was something that I&amp;#039;m sure, African American men and women all had imagined at some point.  It was sad though, how Clare had to hide her race, at the request of her aunts. It was interesting to me that although she lived with her aunts, she was still expected to &amp;quot;doing all the housework, and most of the washing.&amp;quot; (P. 140) In the story, Clare even says that she had &amp;quot;Negro blood&amp;quot; and apparently that is why she did all the housework, and it was almost expected of her because of her race. The Harlem Renaissance gave Nella Larsen a way to voice this imaginative idea, to maybe give the rest of the world the idea that African Americans merely wanted to be like everyone else, and she portrayed this by showing how important &amp;quot;passing&amp;quot; was for Clare. -- Alex M.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T03:40:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This essay discusses the growing sexual and emotional freedom that women were obtaining in the eartly 20th century.  They were able to choose how they wanted to carry themselves sexually in society.  However, to me, this essay was also a great paradox.  Although these women expressed themselves more feely than in the past, they were also severley tied down to men still.  Even in these so-called &amp;quot;furnished-room&amp;quot; districts, there was still sexual oppression and these women were subject to rape, poor conditions and economic dependence.  Although they could conceibably choose their different sex partners, they were also very dependent on these men for their business.  They need to break away from these districts in order to be truly sexually liberated.  Many downplayed these factors, but in order for women to liberated, these constraints must be lifted.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2010-03-11T03:30:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Afrisk: /* Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN&amp;#039;T ONE YET)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like the essay &amp;quot;Making Faces&amp;quot; by Kath Peiss. Comparing today&amp;#039;s perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peiss provides a very different approach to the popularization of cosmetics throughout the 19th century. I never thought about it too much before, but it is apparent that the growth of the cosmetics industry is indicative of the growth of the market and society as a whole. Cosmetics not only became reflective of consumer culture (to include mass production and distribution) but aesthetics as well. People, women particularly, became much more concerned with their physical appearance, which led to the use of makeup. This is also reflected through society when women chose to participate in athletic events and sports. And also the use of women in advertising and other public forums. It is also important to recognize that some feelings about cosmetics have not changed. There are still two separate trains of thought: that cosmetics help enhance the femininity of women or that natural beauty is true beauty. These two opinions are still around and prevalent today Also, the forums in which makeup are sold have not changed. Cosmetics are still sold in drugstores, home-sellers like Mary Kay or Avon, and department stores, which tend to carry higher-end products. It took a decent amount of time for cosmetics to be accepted into the perception of being feminine, but since it has been accepted, opinions have not dramatically changed over the last century. --MDvorak&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the cosmetics article that we read, there is mention of a few “natural” ways to achieve better beauty or a higher level of attractiveness. These actions are “breathing, exercise, diet, and bathing “(345). I understand exercise, diet and bathing, what I do not get is how breathing makes a difference?  How were women breathing and were they breathing? I’m just confused and intrigued by that example. –jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was particularly intrigued by the concept of skin bleaching.  I had heard before about African-American women bleaching their skin in an attempt to appear more white, but I had never heard of white women doing so.  I would be interested to know more about the change from pale skin to tanned skin being the ideal.  -Alice W&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time.  It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this so interesting! The varied answers of the women showed just how much discourse there was within women at this time.  The women definitely saw intercourse, orgasms, marriage, etc. as very different functions/facets of their lives. - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Mosher survey very interesting. I too agree that it was surprising that the younger women seemed more sexually conservative than the older women, especially the 53 year old. Through this survey you can see the shift from the traditional family to the Companionate marriage. Though respondent number 1 believed that sexual satisfaction was only necessary for the male, most of the other women believed that it was necessary for the female as well.  I wonder how shocking this survey was to these women who were interviewed because it deals with such salacious issues, and reveals that women do have sexual desires which were thought of as immoral in the past. –Caryn Levine&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be &amp;quot;one vast brothel.&amp;quot;  The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written.  It&amp;#039;s amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality.  Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the &amp;#039;slippery slope&amp;#039; argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be interested to see about how Dr. Frederick came to some of his conclusions in this piece.  As we have learned in class, in was much more lady-like for a woman to be less interested in sex at the time, so if Dr. Frederick came to these conclusions by talking to female patients, it could be the result of many of them trying to create an more wholesome image of themselves.  This of course would only reinforce the old idea that women did not enjoy sex as much.  -John Rowley&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I love your comparison, Erin!  It seems that Dr. Frederick believes that women that have any sexual interests beyond procreating must be sexually perverted.  Developing and exploring such interests will only lead to an indifference towards men and the desire to molest children with other women.  I feel Frederick was trying to reinforce the idea of a &amp;quot;proper&amp;quot; lady that wasn&amp;#039;t particularly interested in sex, as John mentioned, by making sexuality seem horrible.  And yet, Dr. Frederick&amp;#039;s claims are lacking any kind of clear evidence.  I wonder if more readers believed or didn&amp;#039;t believe what this man wrote.  I laughed at the last line, &amp;quot;the numbers and variations of practices are so various that it would take pages to mention them&amp;quot; (p. 4).  This is probably an exaggeration, yet I could see Dr. Frederick coming up with pages of exaggerated claims just to prove his point. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”&lt;br /&gt;
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree with the implication of Catt&amp;#039;s undersestimation of the difficuluty of women to get into postiions of power; I think she knew full and well that the fight for Women was nowhere near over (it&amp;#039;s still being fought today even). For example, on page 122 she states &amp;quot;Women must persuade men to respect and have conidence in the capacities of women just as we have been doing for 60 odd years; and on the other hand, they must stimulate other women to forward movement and encourage them to increased self respect. This is the same old struggle, but in a new field. Because women have the vote, it doesn&amp;#039;t follow that every man... has suddenly become convinced that women can do things as well as men&amp;quot;. I think she fully understood that men were, and always had been, afraid of powerful women and that the right to vote for women may have been an attempt to a means of appeasement for the women so that they would shut up and retain their place in society happy that they had the meaningless vote. -Ssellers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this statement. I also believe that Catt knew what was in front of her as well as why women were given the right to vote in the first place. She mentioned that it was a tactical reason that persuaded men to give women the vote (121) and that many would need to be convinced that women were capable of performing the same tasks as men (122). The way she choses her words makes it seem that she knew that men were only consenting to allow the suffrage amendment to pass so that women would quiet down, which is why she pushes women to want to get involved in politics in order to bring about more change. –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with SSellers here. I think Catt (at least in reference to this speech) seems like she was full aware of the hardships involved for the new generation of women.  &amp;quot;You won&amp;#039;t be so welcome there, but that is the place to be,&amp;quot; (page 122), she says in regards to women being on the inside.  I do like that she called to the younger women to come forth to wage this battle, seeing as how she was a leader in the suffrage movement and 60 years old at this point. She probably felt she had done her part in the fighting for the right to vote, and now it was the next generations turn to put that vote to good use. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the previous comments and I also think its important to note that Catt is proud of their accomplishments, but also makes it clear that not much has really changed. On page 122 she says &amp;quot;this is the same old struggle but in a new field.&amp;quot; She new that just because women had the right to vote didn&amp;#039;t mean that things were going to necessarily change. She knew that men could make it very hard for women to have political power unless they were persuaded that women could handle it. Essentially, Catt is saying that the right to vote is really just a chance for women to prove that they can handle the same responsibility as men and that she hopes all of those women who fought so hard to vote are still up to the challenge because its not even close to being over. -Angie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Catt was fully aware of the struggles facing future generations in the fight for equal rights.  The passage of the 19th Amendment, according to Catt’s reasoning, was just the first step in a long process.  Further, she thought that to succeed women would have to approach change from the inside and the right to vote was just a foot in the door, so to speak.  EFritz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can understand both perspectives in this debate, but can only beleive the perspective of the women who were in favor of an equal rights amendment.  Women just obtained the right to vote but, are not complete as a gender, until they are viewed as equal to men in society.  To me, the right to vote cannot truly come into effect until women are viewed equally as men.  Men still do not take their political views very seriously and simply giving women the right to vote will not change this opinion.  Hamilton says that the goal for all feminists is the same, and based on what we have learned so far, this is obviously not true.  She is referring to traditional feminism, which has its roots with white middle class women.  She claims an equal rights amendment will make things more complicated, but in my opinion, things will be much easier and obviously women would be able to accomplish more.-afrisk&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. &lt;br /&gt;
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work.  She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow.  She had already separated the male and female arenas.  The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages.  What time is left for children, husband, and home?  It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation.  I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice.  Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference.  It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender.  They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it.  –Erin Sanderson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do see both sides. While some women are all WOOHOO WE CAN VOTE WE&amp;#039;RE EQUAL!! Others didn&amp;#039;t quite that stance. It&amp;#039;s important to remember that many women approved of women&amp;#039;s suffrage soley on the basis they wanted to fix things within the domestic realm, i.e. they wanted women to still be outside the public arena because men and women were NOT equal. Those were the women pushing for protective legislation, they believed women still needed protection under the law. However, I think those women pushing for the equal rights amendment had the right idea. - Christine Leckner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Alice Paul stated that “the goal of all feminists is the same” (125), and I assume she meant only white, middle class women when she said “all”, because as we have read, not all women had necessarily the same goals when pushing for suffrage. There were different motivations behind each demographics’s desire for women suffrage; not only where the motivations different, but the means of communicating these desires were also vastly different.  She then introduces the idea of following in Holland’s footsteps for equality among the sexes, and I would like to know where she got that information? Had she traveled to Holland and seen it first hand? It’s not central to the article, however it would be more compelling if she had seen this practice in action and was not repeating something that was not verified.  ---jmarshal&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including &amp;quot;dating,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;pickups,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;temporary alliances&amp;quot; stood out to me. I didn&amp;#039;t know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or &amp;quot;non marital sexual expression&amp;quot; was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven&amp;#039;t really changed.  -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the notion that &amp;quot;employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives&amp;quot; (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America&amp;#039;s loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like &amp;quot;occasional prostitution&amp;quot; probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Model:&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Or, Women and Wine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and in it Marcelle admits she is a &amp;quot;gold digger&amp;quot; which I compare to Kayne West&amp;#039;s song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s theory that &amp;quot;the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women&amp;#039;s history.&amp;quot;(335). -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading &amp;quot;Sexual Geography and Gender Economy,&amp;quot; I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed &amp;quot;going steady&amp;quot; as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in &amp;quot;honest&amp;quot; work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved this articles insinuation that dating was a supplement to poor wages because dates would pay for women to live the life of the rich and famous without actually having to be rich or famous. Basically, the man is at fault for what males complain about today (in paying for things out on dates, or drinks at a bar, or anything they have to spend money on) because he couldn&amp;#039;t just pay the women a living wage so she went and used the weakness of the male sex to her new found sexuality to her advantage. -ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This sexual revolution was definitely a big change for women. I think Joanne Meyerowitz&amp;#039;s article does a good job of explaining how the migration to cities created this new type of women. Because women were in these cities working, it created a new atmosphere, one Meyerowitz describes as, &amp;quot;opening possibilities for both sexual experimentation and sexual coercion&amp;quot; (US, 335). This &amp;quot;freedom of urban life&amp;quot; gave women the opportunity to use their bodies for both economic and personal gains. -- David Fitch&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading Joanne Meyerowitz’s article, especially about the differences in the ways that women used sex as a way of getting ahead. I had never thought of dating as a literal exchange of goods (paid dates for sex), and looking back on it, it very well could be taken that way, and I am surprised I had not heard of or read that view before now. Then the other methods (“picking up”, “occasional prostitution”, and “temporary alliance”) were of varying degrees of this idea. This article really makes it sound almost like a legitimate way to make a living. Perhaps it is because it presents with the idea that women were in control of their relations with these men, not sent out to do someone else’s bidding (introduce pimps and it is a totally different story). –jmarshal &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it&amp;#039;s interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author&amp;#039;s description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style?  The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet.  This discussion on the &amp;quot;Keep your maiden name&amp;quot; slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920&amp;#039;s.  I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women&amp;#039;s movement in the 1920&amp;#039;s and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Feminism.. &amp;quot;For the word suggests either the old school of fighting feminists who wore flat heels amd had very little feminine charm, or the current species who antagonize men with their constant clamor about maiden names, equal rights, woman&amp;#039;s place in the world...&amp;quot; I enjoyed this line... that&amp;#039;s how I viewed feminists coming into this class last semester! - christine l&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women&amp;#039;s health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention.  This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had.  It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy.  Overall, I think all these letters showed women&amp;#039;s desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family).  They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice.  -abratchi&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys.  I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children.  Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau&amp;#039;s pamphlets.  Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women.  This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E.  is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on.  Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women.  Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today.  Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the first letter was interesting, although I understood how the woman would feel some sense of relief in having written information on hand during pregnancy and after.  I had four kids in five years and I still referred to my “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” book with each one.  I wasn’t aware that the federal government had provided this material to women back then; I think it was a fantastic program.  It was also enlightening to read the second letter in which the woman was concerned that she was &amp;#039;marking&amp;#039; the baby by her cravings.  I wonder if this stems from the fact that birthmarks were often referred to as strawberry marks and that this is what the neighbor was referring to.  In both of these letters, these women were seeking information about pregnancy and childbirth at a time when being seen by a physician was not a common occurrance and most of their knowledge was instead from other women in their social groups. EFritz&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Afrisk</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />