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=Aholman</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=Aholman"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Aholman"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T19:11:19Z</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>2010-12-02T03:31:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film */&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;
I agree with Debbie that the movie definitely portrayed the mess and confusion around the entire Watergate scandal. I am sure that between the white house trying to cover everything up and leads telling you others stories, the actual &amp;quot;story&amp;quot; might not alway be clear. What made things more complicated what that no one was talking, as was iterated by the doors slamming in their face when they were working through the list. Also the name dropping, while there were so many names dropped (and I did use Google and wiki to look up most of them) it shows how complicated the entire thing was. The wasn&amp;#039;t just 3 guys up to no good, this was an entire presidential administration. SO even though I was lost amidst the names, I gained a broader sense of the scope of the trial. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was quite well done and as others have noted before me did a good job of incorporating everyone who was involved in the Watergate story and scandal. While the movie was a focus on Woodward and Bernstein aka &amp;quot;Woodstein,&amp;quot; the movie accurately showed how difficult it was for the men to gather important, revealing information. One of the scenes that stood out most to me, was the early help offered from the librarian and after she places them on hold quickly refuses the help. She further denies ever knowing Woodward or Bernstein and causes them to backtrack and not appear credible. This point made me believe that the White House and the administration truly worked to cover all of their basis further making them appear more guilty and appearing to have a hold over all offices connected with the White House. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to find out that the filmmakers went to great lengths to replicate The Washington Post newsroom. In fact, the labels on the filing cabinet were meticulously done and eve more astounding, trash from the real Washington Post newsroom was flown in to Hollywood to put as clutter on the desks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm). -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above comments. The movie did a nice job portraying the chaotic and confusing Watergate Scandal. It showed how the journalists were struggling to get truths out of those involved in the administration and how scared people were to go against the Presidential administration. Also, the film also did a great job of depicting how touchy of a story this was. If Woodward and Bernstein had been wrong about the scandal, they most certainly would have lost their jobs, as well as Ben Bradley. It did leave me wondering if Bradley was this much of a hard-ass in real life though. --Anna Holman&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;
I definitely agree with LeAnn, the only moment of competitive tension was at the very beginning of the film. Woodward left a draft of his article which Bernstein promptly went forward to correct. Afterward, they seem like fairly good pals on a mission. Was there a little bit of hollywood flair in the potential violence aimed at the reporters?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:25, 1 December 2010 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that a major problem with the film was that it portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the lone forces facing the Nixon administration.  Though their editor played a minor role, there were no other major players that were searching for the truth in the Watergate story.  As we saw in class, several different people played key roles in the entire process that eventually led to Nixon&amp;#039;s downfall, like the Judge John Sirica and the lead prosecutor, but that is not really seen in the film. -Melissa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Melissa. Also, they always showed &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; in the news room all alone, as if they were the only ones response for the coverage when really, EVERYONE would have been involved, even the lowliest coffee-fetcher. But again, as we&amp;#039;ve seen before, it is depicted that way for dramatic effect. Only showing those two men in the news room really gives the impression that they were solely responsible for the reporting of the Watergate scandal. -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with LeAnn, it struck me as odd that there was no competitiveness between the two men. It was only at one point in the beginning of the film. And they were always working on the case alone, with very little outside help. Also I did find some copies of Woodward&amp;#039;s Notebooks online... and no where were there drawings of people in sunglasses. (maybe in another notebook?) I was quite disappointed. Nevertheless [http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/index2.html the notebooks] are still interesting. Yet really hard to read. Journalists these days with their sloppy handwriting. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Melissa and Kelly brought up, I did not like how &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;quot; portrayed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the sole investigators of the Watergate Scandal. In reality, there were many others on the case, such as Roger Wilkins, a former Washington Post reporter who recently spoke at UMW and also shared in the Pulitzer Prize for their fantastic journalism. However, like Kelly stated, the movie would not have been as dramatic if all of the lowly players were involved like &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned. Also, in the very beginning of the movie, only one man was pictured doing surveillance across the street during the Watergate break in, when there were actually two. --Anna Holman&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;
Seeing the reporters turned away at every step and informants unwilling to say anything without a cute Bernstein smile demonstrated a 70s sense of paranoia towards the government which is always watching, willing to cut you down if you say too much. The government is a perpetual and mysterious &amp;quot;they&amp;quot; from which no one can truly escape...popcorn?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:29, 1 December 2010 (MST)&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the section titled &amp;quot;Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters&amp;quot; Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, &amp;quot;They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting.&amp;quot;  (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers&amp;#039; characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One element that was mentioned in Toplin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; that was not included in &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;quot; was an unnecessary love affair. What a contrast from the sappiness of &amp;quot;Last of the Mohicans&amp;quot;! This exclusion was very much appreciated. --Anna Holman&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>Aholman</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>2010-12-02T03:26:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
I agree with Debbie that the movie definitely portrayed the mess and confusion around the entire Watergate scandal. I am sure that between the white house trying to cover everything up and leads telling you others stories, the actual &amp;quot;story&amp;quot; might not alway be clear. What made things more complicated what that no one was talking, as was iterated by the doors slamming in their face when they were working through the list. Also the name dropping, while there were so many names dropped (and I did use Google and wiki to look up most of them) it shows how complicated the entire thing was. The wasn&amp;#039;t just 3 guys up to no good, this was an entire presidential administration. SO even though I was lost amidst the names, I gained a broader sense of the scope of the trial. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was quite well done and as others have noted before me did a good job of incorporating everyone who was involved in the Watergate story and scandal. While the movie was a focus on Woodward and Bernstein aka &amp;quot;Woodstein,&amp;quot; the movie accurately showed how difficult it was for the men to gather important, revealing information. One of the scenes that stood out most to me, was the early help offered from the librarian and after she places them on hold quickly refuses the help. She further denies ever knowing Woodward or Bernstein and causes them to backtrack and not appear credible. This point made me believe that the White House and the administration truly worked to cover all of their basis further making them appear more guilty and appearing to have a hold over all offices connected with the White House. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to find out that the filmmakers went to great lengths to replicate The Washington Post newsroom. In fact, the labels on the filing cabinet were meticulously done and eve more astounding, trash from the real Washington Post newsroom was flown in to Hollywood to put as clutter on the desks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm). -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above comments. The movie did a nice job portraying the chaotic and confusing Watergate Scandal. It showed how the journalists were struggling to get truths out of those involved in the administration and how scared people were to go against the Presidential administration. Also, the film also did a great job of depicting how touchy of a story this was. If Woodward and Bernstein had been wrong about the scandal, they most certainly would have lost their jobs, as well as Ben Bradley. It did leave me wondering if Bradley was this much of a hard-ass in real life though. --Anna Holman&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;
I definitely agree with LeAnn, the only moment of competitive tension was at the very beginning of the film. Woodward left a draft of his article which Bernstein promptly went forward to correct. Afterward, they seem like fairly good pals on a mission. Was there a little bit of hollywood flair in the potential violence aimed at the reporters?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:25, 1 December 2010 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that a major problem with the film was that it portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the lone forces facing the Nixon administration.  Though their editor played a minor role, there were no other major players that were searching for the truth in the Watergate story.  As we saw in class, several different people played key roles in the entire process that eventually led to Nixon&amp;#039;s downfall, like the Judge John Sirica and the lead prosecutor, but that is not really seen in the film. -Melissa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Melissa. Also, they always showed &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; in the news room all alone, as if they were the only ones response for the coverage when really, EVERYONE would have been involved, even the lowliest coffee-fetcher. But again, as we&amp;#039;ve seen before, it is depicted that way for dramatic effect. Only showing those two men in the news room really gives the impression that they were solely responsible for the reporting of the Watergate scandal. -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with LeAnn, it struck me as odd that there was no competitiveness between the two men. It was only at one point in the beginning of the film. And they were always working on the case alone, with very little outside help. Also I did find some copies of Woodward&amp;#039;s Notebooks online... and no where were there drawings of people in sunglasses. (maybe in another notebook?) I was quite disappointed. Nevertheless [http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/index2.html the notebooks] are still interesting. Yet really hard to read. Journalists these days with their sloppy handwriting. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Melissa and Kelly brought up, I did not like how &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;quot; portrayed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the sole investigators of the Watergate Scandal. In reality, there were many others on the case, such as Roger Wilkins, a former Washington Post reporter who recently spoke at UMW and also shared in the Pulitzer Prize for their fantastic journalism. However, like Kelly stated, the movie would not have been as dramatic if all of the lowly players were involved like &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned. Also, in the very beginning of the movie, only one man was pictured doing surveillance across the street during the Watergate break in, when there were actually two. --Anna Holman&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;
Seeing the reporters turned away at every step and informants unwilling to say anything without a cute Bernstein smile demonstrated a 70s sense of paranoia towards the government which is always watching, willing to cut you down if you say too much. The government is a perpetual and mysterious &amp;quot;they&amp;quot; from which no one can truly escape...popcorn?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:29, 1 December 2010 (MST)&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the section titled &amp;quot;Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters&amp;quot; Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, &amp;quot;They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting.&amp;quot;  (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers&amp;#039; characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M.&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>Aholman</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>2010-12-02T03:21:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Things the movie got wrong */&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;
I agree with Debbie that the movie definitely portrayed the mess and confusion around the entire Watergate scandal. I am sure that between the white house trying to cover everything up and leads telling you others stories, the actual &amp;quot;story&amp;quot; might not alway be clear. What made things more complicated what that no one was talking, as was iterated by the doors slamming in their face when they were working through the list. Also the name dropping, while there were so many names dropped (and I did use Google and wiki to look up most of them) it shows how complicated the entire thing was. The wasn&amp;#039;t just 3 guys up to no good, this was an entire presidential administration. SO even though I was lost amidst the names, I gained a broader sense of the scope of the trial. - Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was quite well done and as others have noted before me did a good job of incorporating everyone who was involved in the Watergate story and scandal. While the movie was a focus on Woodward and Bernstein aka &amp;quot;Woodstein,&amp;quot; the movie accurately showed how difficult it was for the men to gather important, revealing information. One of the scenes that stood out most to me, was the early help offered from the librarian and after she places them on hold quickly refuses the help. She further denies ever knowing Woodward or Bernstein and causes them to backtrack and not appear credible. This point made me believe that the White House and the administration truly worked to cover all of their basis further making them appear more guilty and appearing to have a hold over all offices connected with the White House. -Megan W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to find out that the filmmakers went to great lengths to replicate The Washington Post newsroom. In fact, the labels on the filing cabinet were meticulously done and eve more astounding, trash from the real Washington Post newsroom was flown in to Hollywood to put as clutter on the desks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm). -- Kelly R.&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;
I definitely agree with LeAnn, the only moment of competitive tension was at the very beginning of the film. Woodward left a draft of his article which Bernstein promptly went forward to correct. Afterward, they seem like fairly good pals on a mission. Was there a little bit of hollywood flair in the potential violence aimed at the reporters?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:25, 1 December 2010 (MST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that a major problem with the film was that it portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the lone forces facing the Nixon administration.  Though their editor played a minor role, there were no other major players that were searching for the truth in the Watergate story.  As we saw in class, several different people played key roles in the entire process that eventually led to Nixon&amp;#039;s downfall, like the Judge John Sirica and the lead prosecutor, but that is not really seen in the film. -Melissa&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Melissa. Also, they always showed &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; in the news room all alone, as if they were the only ones response for the coverage when really, EVERYONE would have been involved, even the lowliest coffee-fetcher. But again, as we&amp;#039;ve seen before, it is depicted that way for dramatic effect. Only showing those two men in the news room really gives the impression that they were solely responsible for the reporting of the Watergate scandal. -- Kelly R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with LeAnn, it struck me as odd that there was no competitiveness between the two men. It was only at one point in the beginning of the film. And they were always working on the case alone, with very little outside help. Also I did find some copies of Woodward&amp;#039;s Notebooks online... and no where were there drawings of people in sunglasses. (maybe in another notebook?) I was quite disappointed. Nevertheless [http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/index2.html the notebooks] are still interesting. Yet really hard to read. Journalists these days with their sloppy handwriting. -Jenn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Melissa and Kelly brought up, I did not like how &amp;quot;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;quot; portrayed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the sole investigators of the Watergate Scandal. In reality, there were many others on the case, such as Roger Wilkins, a former Washington Post reporter who recently spoke at UMW and also shared in the Pulitzer Prize for their fantastic journalism. However, like Kelly stated, the movie would not have been as dramatic if all of the lowly players were involved like &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned. Also, in the very beginning of the movie, only one man was pictured doing surveillance across the street during the Watergate break in, when there were actually two. --Anna Holman&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;
Seeing the reporters turned away at every step and informants unwilling to say anything without a cute Bernstein smile demonstrated a 70s sense of paranoia towards the government which is always watching, willing to cut you down if you say too much. The government is a perpetual and mysterious &amp;quot;they&amp;quot; from which no one can truly escape...popcorn?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:29, 1 December 2010 (MST)&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the section titled &amp;quot;Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters&amp;quot; Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, &amp;quot;They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting.&amp;quot;  (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. But sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I definitely agree with Toplin that it is hard to keep audiences attention by showing &amp;quot;statistics, abstract analysis, or attention to a condition of groups.&amp;quot; (p. 40) I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M.&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>Aholman</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>2010-11-17T19:36:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-17T19:31:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-10T22:21:25Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts.  Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, &amp;quot;if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I&amp;#039;m going to continue driving.&amp;quot; That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn&amp;#039;t need his approval. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans&amp;#039; experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn&amp;#039;t understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the  bus. After class, I learned that African American&amp;#039;s, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn&amp;#039;t want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa&amp;#039;s racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future &amp;quot;there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future&amp;quot; http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting to compare &amp;quot;Long Walk Home&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;To Kill a Mockingbird&amp;quot; and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one.  Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. &amp;quot;Mockingbird&amp;quot; ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but &amp;quot;Long Walk Home&amp;quot; ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.&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;
Alice Brantley&amp;#039;s testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement.  The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie&amp;#039;s key scenes. When the Citizens&amp;#039; Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands.  This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK&amp;#039;s non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman&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.  Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history.  But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks.  The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa&amp;#039;s family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens&amp;#039; Council and the catty women&amp;#039;s circles. --- 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;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice.  -- Justine R.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-10T22:14:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts.  Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, &amp;quot;if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I&amp;#039;m going to continue driving.&amp;quot; That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn&amp;#039;t need his approval. -- Justine R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans&amp;#039; experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn&amp;#039;t understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the  bus. After class, I learned that African American&amp;#039;s, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn&amp;#039;t want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class.  -Amy V.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==&lt;br /&gt;
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa&amp;#039;s racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future &amp;quot;there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future&amp;quot; http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting to compare &amp;quot;Long Walk Home&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;To Kill a Mockingbird&amp;quot; and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one.  Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. &amp;quot;Mockingbird&amp;quot; ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but &amp;quot;Long Walk Home&amp;quot; ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.&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;
Alice Brantley&amp;#039;s testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement.  The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie&amp;#039;s key scenes. When the Citizens&amp;#039; Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands.  This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK&amp;#039;s non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.&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.  Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history.  But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks.  The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa&amp;#039;s family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens&amp;#039; Council and the catty women&amp;#039;s circles. --- 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;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice.  -- Justine R.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T23:17:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? */&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;
== 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;
The movie&amp;#039;s title 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 new world.  In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows that although these couples love each other, their lives won&amp;#039;t be easy.  Fruther thoughts about the title:  People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use that 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, when she says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him.  For her, it&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. --- 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;
== 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 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;
== 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;
== 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>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T23:15:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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;
The movie&amp;#039;s title 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 new world.  In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows that although these couples love each other, their lives won&amp;#039;t be easy.  Fruther thoughts about the title:  People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use that 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, when she says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him.  For her, it&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. --- 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;
== 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 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;
== 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;
== 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>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T23:09:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? */&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;
== 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;
The movie&amp;#039;s title 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 new world.  In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows that although these couples love each other, their lives won&amp;#039;t be easy.  Fruther thoughts about the title:  People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use that 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, when she says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him.  For her, it&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. --- Debbi S.&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 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;
== 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;
== 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>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T23:02:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T22:56:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */&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 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-11-03T22:53:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-27T18:03:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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;
&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;
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;
== 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;
== 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, 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;
== 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;
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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-27T18:01:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
&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;
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;
== 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;
== 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, 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-27T17:54:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
&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;
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;
== 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;
== 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, 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-20T17:29:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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;
&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;
== 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;
&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;
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 him 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;
== 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. His spiritual partner was Clementine, who would teach the next generation the values that Ford seems to admire:  loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. --- Debbi S.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-20T17:25:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
&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;
== 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;
&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;
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 him 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;
== 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;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-06T23:31:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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;
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;
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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-06T23:25:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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 S.&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-06T23:21:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
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. Finally, 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.--Anna Holman&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;
== 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;
== 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 S.&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-10-06T23:18:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
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. Finally, 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.--Anna Holman&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;
== 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;
== 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 S.&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-30T02:35:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */&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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-30T02:31:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
As my fellow classmates have said Scarlett is an annoying idiot but she does portray the idea of the old south that women were delicate. She faints every five minutes and her aunt every two minutes so it does show the supposed delicacy of women. It also shows how women might not be able to breath in the first place by the scene with Scarlett and the servent where she is getting her corset tied. The movie also depicts how dangerous having a baby was in those days because Scarlett was terrified that Melanie would die. - LeAnn&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;
Though this might sound wrong, my historical snob alter-ego was satisfied when the characters were killed off by disease instead of tomahawk. Much less exciting, but so historically pleasing. Additionally, the portrayal of Southern men after the war was pretty accurate. Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara clearly suffers from a bruised ego and depression. The men all return with a form of PTSD and regrets. Going along with this, the film also depicts the excitement of many men to go to war. They saw it as an adventure instead of a brutal atrocity. Lastly, the hospital scene showed the chaotic and brutal nature of war. Amputations, lack of pain killers, no sanitation, and lack of doctors and nurses are all included. --Anna Holman&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;
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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-30T02:25:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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 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;
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;
Though this might sound wrong, my historical snob alter-ego was satisfied when the characters were killed off by disease instead of tomahawk. Much less exciting, but so historically pleasing. Additionally, the portrayal of Southern men after the war was pretty accurate. Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara clearly suffers from a bruised ego and depression. The men all return with a form of PTSD and regrets. Going along with this, the film also depicts the excitement of many men to go to war. They saw it as an adventure instead of a brutal atrocity. Lastly, the hospital scene showed the chaotic and brutal nature of war. Amputations, lack of pain killers, no sanitation, and lack of doctors and nurses are all included. --Anna Holman&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;
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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-23T00:23:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
&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;
== 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 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-23T00:19:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
&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;
== 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 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-15T16:46:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-15T16:43:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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 the colonies 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;
== 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;
== 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;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-15T16:40:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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 the colonies 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;
== 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;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Questions asked in class ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-08T20:07:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */&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;
== 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. 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;
== 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;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-08T20:04:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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. 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;
== 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;
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-01T23:12:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* General comments for Pocahontas */&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;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Things the movie got wrong ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Movie as primary source ==&lt;br /&gt;
&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;
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;
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;
==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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-09-01T15:31:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Pocahontas, Disney Movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;This is a test.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pocahontas, Disney Movie== &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;
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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-08-25T23:31:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
Yay discussion!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!&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;
==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;
==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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-08-25T23:28:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
Yay discussion!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!&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;
==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;
==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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-21T15:56:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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;
== 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-21T15:51:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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>Aholman</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>2010-04-15T02:54:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /*  */&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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-08T02:26:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
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 B.&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;
&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;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; Laila Haidarali ==&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;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Haidarali, 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-08T02:23:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; Laila Haidarali */&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 B.&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;
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;
== &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;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; Laila Haidarali ==&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;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Haidarali, 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-08T02:21:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; Laila Haidarali */&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 B.&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;
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;
== &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;
== &amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds,&amp;quot; Laila Haidarali ==&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]--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;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Haidarali, 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-04-07T14:53:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* &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;/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;
== &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;
&amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot;&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>Aholman</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>2010-04-07T14:53:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* 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;
== 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;
== &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;
&amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot;&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>Aholman</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>2010-04-07T14:46:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* &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;/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;
== 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;
== &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;
&amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot;&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>Aholman</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>2010-04-07T14:45:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* &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;/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;
== 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;
== &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;
&amp;quot;Polishing Brown Diamonds&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;More than a Lady&amp;quot;&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>Aholman</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>2010-04-01T05:07:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Nonconformist Joyce Johnson Recounts Her Experience in Obtaining an Illegal Abortion in New York City, 1955 */&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 completely agree with Ssellers. The U.S. didn&amp;#039;t give her an option. How could the &amp;quot;Land of the Free&amp;quot; criticize one of it&amp;#039;s citizens for taking advantage of an opportunity that the state refused to give?-Anna K Holman&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 WSP 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;
I found it interesting how she almost plays off the decision to move to California as her parents decisions that they made without the force of governmental pressure. Yes there were no weapons forcing them to move or marching them down a path they did not want to take, but the propaganda for leaving (the promise of a better life, the false advertisements of wealth and opportunity) would have been enough to get any group of people to leave their homelands, especially if they had been used to poverty for an extended period of time. The American government does not have the best track record when it comes to handling relations with other ethnicities and races in terms of making equal opportunities available. Ghettos turned ethnic enclaves seem to be a recurring theme in American minority history, and each minority group has had an impact on the development of the America that exists today, therefore each group does deserve to have recognition, not just the African Americans and women, but the Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps, the chicano Americans who were limited in their migration but who were instrumental in making the US a transcontinental commerce, and finally the Native Americans, who suffered every time white Americans wanted to move and take their land. No group should be excluded in American history and none should be excluded in how they are remembered and honored today. --jmarshal&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>Aholman</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>2010-04-01T05:01:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Taylor, Women Strike for Peace */&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 WSP 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;
I found it interesting how she almost plays off the decision to move to California as her parents decisions that they made without the force of governmental pressure. Yes there were no weapons forcing them to move or marching them down a path they did not want to take, but the propaganda for leaving (the promise of a better life, the false advertisements of wealth and opportunity) would have been enough to get any group of people to leave their homelands, especially if they had been used to poverty for an extended period of time. The American government does not have the best track record when it comes to handling relations with other ethnicities and races in terms of making equal opportunities available. Ghettos turned ethnic enclaves seem to be a recurring theme in American minority history, and each minority group has had an impact on the development of the America that exists today, therefore each group does deserve to have recognition, not just the African Americans and women, but the Japanese Americans who were placed in internment camps, the chicano Americans who were limited in their migration but who were instrumental in making the US a transcontinental commerce, and finally the Native Americans, who suffered every time white Americans wanted to move and take their land. No group should be excluded in American history and none should be excluded in how they are remembered and honored today. --jmarshal&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>Aholman</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>2010-03-31T14:26:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Taylor, Women Strike for Peace */&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 felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. 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. 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) 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 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. 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; 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, 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;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson ==&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 for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. 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). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&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, 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? 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 a quirk of grammar. 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. 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. --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. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. 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. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –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? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)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, 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...??) 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;
&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 fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder 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. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? 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). 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. -- Kokeefe&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;
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. 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.  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.  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?  It became a moral dilemma.  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  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.)  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Farnham and Lundberg==&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.  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.  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?  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.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. 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. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. 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. 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? --Anna K Holman&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-03-31T14:25:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Taylor, Women Strike for Peace */&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 felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. 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. 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) 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 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. 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; 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, 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;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson ==&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 for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. 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). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&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, 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? 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 a quirk of grammar. 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. 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. --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. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. 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. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –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? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)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, 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...??) 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;
&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 fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder 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. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? 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). 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. -- Kokeefe&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;
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. 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.  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.  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?  It became a moral dilemma.  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  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.)  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Farnham and Lundberg==&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.  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.  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?  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.   -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. 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. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. 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; , 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. 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? --Anna K Holman&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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>2010-03-31T13:55:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Aholman: /* Louisa Randall Church Explores the Duties of Parents as Architects of Peace, 1946 */&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 felt that as all of the articles get closer to current times, their revelance becomes so much more alarming. 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. 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) 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 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. 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; 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, 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;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson ==&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 for some reason I was in disbelief that even back then people questioned the existance of environmental problems like pesticides and pollutions. 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). She certainly won me over. (And I would especially buy some more Samoas to support her environmentalist cause.) --Ssellers&lt;br /&gt;
&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, 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? 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 a quirk of grammar. 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. 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. --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. Getting an abortion in 1955 seems like it would be so much worse. 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. To Joyce Johnson, an abortion was living and having a child meant dying. That is a pretty serious statement. –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? Was a man financially obligated to take care of the situation? How did that notion change into what it is today?)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, 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...??) 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;
&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 fascinating, insightful and harrowing. I wonder 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. Were abortions also illegal in Puerto Rico at that time? I know Rubin did not see any other Americans at her clinic, but was it a likely occurrence that American women would go to Puerto Rico or other countries for the procedure? 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). 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. -- Kokeefe&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;
I think, more than anything, what got to these women was the isolation involved in being the perfect domestic housewife. 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.  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.  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?  It became a moral dilemma.  Women had to maintain that ideal picture, they felt the pressure that limited options for self fulfillment for women in those roles.  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.)  Freidan found in talking with other women that she was not alone in her thoughts.  -MHimes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Farnham and Lundberg==&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;
==Taylor, Women Strike for Peace==&lt;br /&gt;
I can’t help but chuckle anytime HUAC gets the run around. Just imagine being in that courtroom. 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. It sounds like these women used the housewife image well in their campaign for peace. 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;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Aholman</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 />