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>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</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=Cwueb5yr</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=Cwueb5yr"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cwueb5yr"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:33:22Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T02:20:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall =&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T02:07:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T01:35:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T01:33:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-19T01:31:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T00:38:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off. Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoppi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on. The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter. Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how in the movie when Miriam drives by the carpool lot and is asking Odessa about it and Odessa explains how the carpool works.  When Miriam says she wants to help because it is just about busing and Odessa explains that it is about more than just busing. She asks Miriam how will she feel when blacks are teaching in white schools or living in her neighborhood and tells her if she crosses that line she can&amp;#039;t go back. The movie then cuts away to the next day. I think this helps give the sense that maybe whites who were helping didn&amp;#039;t necessarily understand what they were becoming involved in and then when they did find out and what it would truly mean for them, they had doubts about it. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cried. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie. It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T00:32:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off. Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoppi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on. The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter. Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cried. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie. It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T00:19:33Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off. Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoppi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on. The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter. Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cried. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List</id>
		<title>329--Project List</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List"/>
				<updated>2008-11-11T05:14:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 329--Project List ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/]   jwdrury.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/  (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Beth Conrad:  http://embea.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two, and then the biblio)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonathan Bell: http://jbell2ja.umwblogs.org/history-in-film-patton/ Mine is all in one page with two columns read the left side first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren: [http://pyrgress.umwblogs.org] I have the main article and a &amp;quot;works cited&amp;quot; post. Be sure to look at both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wuyscik: http://kwuyscik.umwblogs.org/thirteen-days/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Flores:  http://daflo05.umwblogs.org/cinderella-man-introduction/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan Mull: http://bmull.umwblogs.org/ (Follow right side page links)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine W.: http://cwueb5yr.umwblogs.org/pearl-harbor-project/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:22:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:19:46Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:16:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the mvie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:15:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the mvie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities show were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the role the women had taken during the war it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-05T02:08:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the mvie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T00:25:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T00:23:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T00:19:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T21:43:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T21:40:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T21:40:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T21:36:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-22T21:33:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There was the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-07T19:48:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-07T19:45:08Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-07T19:44:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T00:20:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must say I was curious about whether the slaves in this movie were actually played by African Americans and from what I read they were. This surprised me because some of the slaves have pretty big roles and at this time African Americans were still very much segregated against. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda I really couldn&amp;#039;t stand Scarlett either. I found her character really unbelievable even for a &amp;quot;Southern belle&amp;quot; and I had a hard time believing the other characters interactions with her. It all just seemed really fake. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the little bit of history in this movie is fairly accurate. I find it a hard movie to critic because there is so little in the storyline that comes from history. This movie was clearly meant to be entertaining. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T00:14:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must say I was curious about whether the slaves in this movie were actually played by African Americans and from what I read they were. This surprised me because some of the slaves have pretty big roles and at this time African Americans were still very much segregated against. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T21:08:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of &amp;quot;The Middle Passage&amp;quot;? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well.  I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there.  I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him.  Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character?  I don&amp;#039;t quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character.  We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman&amp;#039;s character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How involved was Queen Isabella?  I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don&amp;#039;t recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident.  It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams?  The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally.  Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was.  I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer &amp;#039;&amp;#039;known&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever.  There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie.  I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Big Damn Heroes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only &amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;would&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque&amp;#039;s story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don&amp;#039;t forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p  I liked it, but I await the &amp;#039;cringes&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known.  In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie.  As a result, it makes me question why more people don&amp;#039;t know if its existence.  It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it.  This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie?  Or was it just not publicized well enough?  It&amp;#039;s a shame because I think it&amp;#039;s a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn&amp;#039;t even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re &amp;#039;&amp;#039;supposed&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don&amp;#039;t believe we can really comprehend that unless we&amp;#039;ve seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline?  If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;; showing that it was Spielberg&amp;#039;s intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen.  It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Touching on Jackie&amp;#039;s point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday.  I don&amp;#039;t recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes.  Also, I absolutely loved Yamba.  I thought his character was amazing.  Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don&amp;#039;t really care.  He was simply wonderful.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption.  I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public&amp;#039;s imagination. As inspiring as JQA&amp;#039;s final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn&amp;#039;t an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn&amp;#039;t come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler&amp;#039;s List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations&amp;#039;s history that we don&amp;#039;t like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T21:00:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of &amp;quot;The Middle Passage&amp;quot;? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well.  I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there.  I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him.  Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character?  I don&amp;#039;t quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character.  We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman&amp;#039;s character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How involved was Queen Isabella?  I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don&amp;#039;t recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident.  It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams?  The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally.  Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was.  I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer &amp;#039;&amp;#039;known&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever.  There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie.  I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Big Damn Heroes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only &amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;would&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque&amp;#039;s story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don&amp;#039;t forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p  I liked it, but I await the &amp;#039;cringes&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known.  In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie.  As a result, it makes me question why more people don&amp;#039;t know if its existence.  It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it.  This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie?  Or was it just not publicized well enough?  It&amp;#039;s a shame because I think it&amp;#039;s a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn&amp;#039;t even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re &amp;#039;&amp;#039;supposed&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don&amp;#039;t believe we can really comprehend that unless we&amp;#039;ve seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline?  If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;; showing that it was Spielberg&amp;#039;s intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen.  It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Touching on Jackie&amp;#039;s point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday.  I don&amp;#039;t recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes.  Also, I absolutely loved Yamba.  I thought his character was amazing.  Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don&amp;#039;t really care.  He was simply wonderful.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption.  I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public&amp;#039;s imagination. As inspiring as JQA&amp;#039;s final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn&amp;#039;t an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn&amp;#039;t come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler&amp;#039;s List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T20:56:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of &amp;quot;The Middle Passage&amp;quot;? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well.  I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there.  I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him.  Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character?  I don&amp;#039;t quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character.  We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman&amp;#039;s character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How involved was Queen Isabella?  I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don&amp;#039;t recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident.  It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams?  The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally.  Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was.  I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer &amp;#039;&amp;#039;known&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever.  There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie.  I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Big Damn Heroes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only &amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;would&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque&amp;#039;s story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don&amp;#039;t forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p  I liked it, but I await the &amp;#039;cringes&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known.  In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie.  As a result, it makes me question why more people don&amp;#039;t know if its existence.  It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it.  This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie?  Or was it just not publicized well enough?  It&amp;#039;s a shame because I think it&amp;#039;s a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn&amp;#039;t even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re &amp;#039;&amp;#039;supposed&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don&amp;#039;t believe we can really comprehend that unless we&amp;#039;ve seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline?  If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;; showing that it was Spielberg&amp;#039;s intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen.  It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Touching on Jackie&amp;#039;s point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday.  I don&amp;#039;t recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes.  Also, I absolutely loved Yamba.  I thought his character was amazing.  Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don&amp;#039;t really care.  He was simply wonderful.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption.  I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public&amp;#039;s imagination. As inspiring as JQA&amp;#039;s final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn&amp;#039;t an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn&amp;#039;t come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler&amp;#039;s List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-17T01:00:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-17T00:56:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T22:46:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English and French mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There&amp;#039;s Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn&amp;#039;t survive in the end. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T22:31:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English and French mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-03T00:40:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;It really is amazing just how different the portrayal of a character in history to film differs, or at least things that they did.  Disney portrays attacking Natives and fighting Englishmen, who have no problems with food or staying alive.  John Smith meets a grown up Pocahontas, not a 10 year old.  I guess they thought it would make for a better story.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading felt more like a trading journal, which I suppose is mostly what they did at the time. Pocahontas is such a minor character that she is only mentioned twice by name. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to have made a large impact on him, if any at all, actually. It doesn&amp;#039;t even appear that they can speak to each other, begging the question.. where did Disney come up with this storyline? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that it is really unrealistic and not factual but I like the movie Pocahontas better than the real story.  The real story just seems so depressing. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read John Smith&amp;#039;s journal before watching Pocahontas for this class and I was amazed at how much I picked up on. While I was watching the movie I had the tendency to think well that&amp;#039;s not what John said happens. I know his journal is not totally reliable but it does provide an interesting foil for the movie. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised at how much John talked about the landscape in his journal. For a man who seemed to only be interested in himself and the wonders he achieved he talks a lot about the rivers and the trees and the fields he sees on his journeys. I also thought it was interesting to read about how, according to him, he was always the one to go places and make trades and the Indians only recognized him. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-03T00:39:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;It really is amazing just how different the portrayal of a character in history to film differs, or at least things that they did.  Disney portrays attacking Natives and fighting Englishmen, who have no problems with food or staying alive.  John Smith meets a grown up Pocahontas, not a 10 year old.  I guess they thought it would make for a better story.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading felt more like a trading journal, which I suppose is mostly what they did at the time. Pocahontas is such a minor character that she is only mentioned twice by name. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to have made a large impact on him, if any at all, actually. It doesn&amp;#039;t even appear that they can speak to each other, begging the question.. where did Disney come up with this storyline? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that it is really unrealistic and not factual but I like the movie Pocahontas better than the real story.  The real story just seems so depressing. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read John Smith&amp;#039;s journal before watching Pocahontas for this class and I was amazed at how much I picked up on. While I was watching the movie I had the tendency to think well that&amp;#039;s not what John said happens. I know his journal is not totally reliable but it does provide an interesting foil for the movie. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised at how much John talked about the landscape in his journal. For a man who seemed to only be interested in himself and the wonders he achieved it talks a lot about the rivers and the trees and the fields he sees on his journeys. I also thought it was interesting to read about how, according to him, he was always the one to go places and make trades and the Indians only recognized him. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-28T02:07:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the words of Senator Arlen Specter, &amp;quot;When Hollywood speaks, the world listens...when Washington speaks, the world snoozes (Why Movies Matter, pp. 1-2).&amp;quot; The words by Senator Specter are funny, yet relevant. Hollywood arouses the general audience more than politicians in Washington D.C. Do people need entertainment to push them into political involvement and awareness?-Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On Lauren&amp;#039;s comments on if we need Hollywood to make us interested in politics, I would say yes and no.  When some people see their favorite celebrity endorsing a certain candidate, they too get interested in politics, even if they never were interested in politics before. For example, during the Presidential election years, MTV does a campaign with celebrities to encourage the young people to vote, and has shown in the past to be successful. Other people are just interested in politics in general, and don&amp;#039;t need celebrities to encourage them to get involved.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America,&amp;quot; the author mentioned that the movie &amp;quot;Across the Pacific&amp;quot; was hastily rewritten after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Instead, the setting was changed to the Panama Canal. It reminded me of movies about the Twin Towers and how movies about them were reportedly halted because of 9/11. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it can be unsafe to watch movies in some cases. For instance, the women on screen are often ideals and it sometimes leads to ordinary women doing dangerous things in attempts to become those ideals. And then there are the various uses of movies as propaganda and tools of manipulation. But, as the article mentions, movies have also been forces of good. They can bring awareness to the suffering in the world and make viewers want to take action against it. Also, more personally, they can just make us feel better after a bad day. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the bigger point was that historical writers have had a few thousands years to develop ways of interpreting and presenting history, while filmmakers have had just over a century to develop their presentation techniques, which is probably part of the reason historians have largely ignored films as credible historical sources. Filmmakers are still the new kids on the block. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To attempt to answer Kellye&amp;#039;s first question, I believe no movie has portrayed history, now or in the past, accurately.  To see what I mean, look at the movie &amp;quot;Vantage Point.&amp;quot; There are several people who witnessed the attempted assassination, but they all have different views of the event. Therefore, no matter the movie, each film will have its own bias and viewpoint, never the whole, objective story. As for Kellye&amp;#039;s second question, future generations who have not experienced events that we all have, such as 9/11, won&amp;#039;t see them as we experienced them and familiar references that we know will get misinterpreted by future generations and history will get blurred from its original context like a game of Telephone. -Lauren Hicks     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; that filmmaking today and in the 1910s sound familiar: anyone with a camera and some kind of budget can make a movie today, there are just infinitely more outlets and audiences available than there were then. Is this circular motion or was the period in between the one we will not see again? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slaves on Screen suggests that history itself must be carefully constructed, qualified and must admit the patchy areas of assumption or inference, whereas film is a story which is primarily entertainment which has less assumed qualifications. The films based on real life events are then questioned by the viewer, which really is a positive step towards getting more persons interested in history (in my humble opinion). –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why Movies Matter describes the overall social impact of movies that I had never really thought about. A quote that particularly demonstrated the importance and dominance of movies as a mode of mass communication was on page 4 – “Far more people are today reached by the moving picture than by the daily press, [and] while we read the newspaper only in parts, the moving picture we see complete.” And this was in 1908! A few pages later… I also liked the idea of censorship being another testimony to how influential films can be on the American public. If movies didn’t really matter or mean something to America, why would censorship be necessary? – Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the introduction of the book. It clearly lays out the direction of which the book is headed and I am already convinced that historic films deserve more credit than they are given. Getting the story out there allows more people to think, question, and investigate further in more traditional ways. This argument meshes well with the Slaves on Screen idea. –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Elle, I saw a correlation between the intro to the &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; book and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  Film is so easily brushed off by critics and historians as a credible source of information, but I believe that using films and movies makes history interesting for more people.  True, some filmmakers take &amp;quot;artistic license&amp;quot; a bit too far and the historical content is a bit stretched, but having someone sit down to watch a movie on a historical event catches one&amp;#039;s interest more easily.  By seeing the event on screen it allows them to actually picture what they&amp;#039;re studying (or are now interested in studying) and applies the whole &amp;quot;face to a name&amp;quot; bit.  They feel more involved with the past than by just reading text on a page. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle and Kelly.  I thought the argument in the intro of &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; was very good and shows that films can be a relevant source of history and sometimes seeing it on the screen even if some liberties were taken in the story brings it alive in a way that is more vibrant and real than just reading it sometimes. ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin&amp;#039;s arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn&amp;#039;t necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Several of the posts have brought up the possible growth of movies as accurate historical acounts or something of that nature. Taylor pointed out that movies which have some tie to history are perhaps continuing to develope through the still very new medium of cinema, while historical writers have had longer to hone techniques of accurate story telling of historical events. But (unless we are talking about movies that are strictly non-fiction documentaries) whether they are historically/period based or not, there is an important descrepency to recognize in making this comparison. Movies are not pure imitation of life. They are forms of art which most often incorporate recognizable and familiar aspects of life in order to appeal to its audience. And whenever life is represented by a form of art, some aspect of factuality is lost by the mere imitation (like the Platonic Theory of Forms- it is not the true ideal (form) when it is already a copy- it has lost some truth). Thus, unless we are comparing historically related movies to historical fiction books, they are not comparable to histories and textbooks. ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With my previous comment in mind...&lt;br /&gt;
My debate question: As forms of art/and or entertainment, should all directors of historically based movies be held to the same level of hisotrical integrity that historians are? Or to the same degree that writers of historical fiction? &lt;br /&gt;
(Futher more... Which is more important, artistic integrity and the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message or a movie&amp;#039;s historical accuracy? ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate.  If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn&amp;#039;t it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
n.b. my post accepts Jackie&amp;#039;s premise as sound. However, I would like to shift Jackie&amp;#039;s debate back on to the historian. Let&amp;#039;s talk about the standard by which historians are judged. We do it every time we write a research paper. We ask who wrote the secondary source? Who published the secondary source? What kinds of motivations were behind the construction of the source?, and so on. Just look at a subject&amp;#039;s historigraphy to see that written history is not always air-tight. I think it would do us well this semester to not just analyze how film makers interpret history, but how historians interpret history. Too often we take historical texts as gospel (especially when compared to artistic representations), but is there really an ultimate truth by which we can compare apples and oranges? (historical text being apples, historical films being oranges)- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason brings up an interesting point when he said that &amp;quot;history is not always air-tight.&amp;quot;  To kind of support this a little further, I&amp;#039;d like to bring up one of our favorite sources, Wikipedia.  Now, granted it is not the most reliable source of information on the planet but we do all use it as a starting point.  But just looking at the history of those pages on historical events you can see that even events that took place hundreds of years ago are still under debate.  Those pages are constantly updated and changed, sometimes by the hour.  Historians themselves always have their own bias and oftentimes that is overlooked when doing research.  How is this any different from a filmmaker and his bias?  Or the bias of someone creating a documentary?  - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is in response to Jackie&amp;#039;s post.  Although you have simplified your concern to a basic &amp;quot;is A better than B&amp;quot; question, I find the content rather complex.  A great film that tries to tell a story during a specific period in our history combines the historical fact with the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message.  At times, the result makes it difficult for us to separate the two.  I think when someone makes a movie, they take what is already generally known about history and fill in the little holes with what the director feels happened.  A common debate of these movies is their portrayal of the character(s).  Without a primary source, we become subjective to how we believe certain historical figures behaved.  So to answer your question, I don&amp;#039;t think directors should be held to the same level of historians are because I feel that they actually try to do different things.  Historians give us facts about the past, and directors try to bring to life these facts while expressing their own artistry in their work. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A couple people have touched on this already, and it&amp;#039;s a topic that I find interesting.  The &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; articles both bring up the debate of whether the media creates society&amp;#039;s values, or do they merely convey them in their work?  I&amp;#039;ve always thought that the media used television and movies to help convey society&amp;#039;s values (for example, The Simpsons conveying the importance of family by taking the model of a 1950&amp;#039;s American family structure).  But after reading these articles, its seems apparent that movies, especially in the 20&amp;#039;s and 30&amp;#039;s, had the distinct role of creating society&amp;#039;s values.  This includes how women should be portrayed, the behavior of lesser-known ethnic groups, and so on.  Movies are a powerful tool in shaping what people believe (or think they should believe) in. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with David that movies are a really powerful way of molding what people believe about others, but I wonder what people would think or be like if they didn&amp;#039;t have movies to influence them.  Would people still have thought that &amp;quot;...Africans were savages, and that their Afro-American decedents were lazy, happy-go-lucky, thieving, sexually promiscuous , and mentally inferior&amp;quot; (Alvin F. Poussaint quote on page 2 of Why Movies Matter), and would people&amp;#039;s buying habits be different as well? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why are academicians so upset with directors if history is not accurately represented? How damaging is it for directors to make egregious errors in historical accuracy? Does a film&amp;#039;s message/ social commentary need to be grounded in &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; or can the film&amp;#039;s message transcend the nuts and bolts of historical accuracy?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading both the introduction to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; excerpt, I was struck by the notion of just how new a medium film study is when compared to more traditional forms of history. I had never thought about how the relatively new status of films likely contribute greatly in the medium&amp;#039;s lack of respect as a means for historical discovery. The example used in &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; of how Homer&amp;#039;s poetry once was the standard form of passing on historical information showed the way that the study of history has been subjective over time. The excerpt also pointed to how Herodotus and Thucydides in many instances made up their own interpretations of speeches in history. This is a practice not unlike the artistic license used by filmmakers for their dialogue. Clearly historic films are not as far off from the more traditional means of passing on historical knowledge. - Bryan Mull	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the excerpt &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I was struck by the observation that audiences react well to the disclaimer placed before many movies: Based on a True Story. I know that I have on occasions been spurred to delve into a subject tackled by a film because of that disclaimer. The author then goes to point out that because movies based on history can spur such questioning, the film medium has a rightful place in the historical arena. I agree with this assessment, as films can touch people in ways that normal texts can never hope to achieve. The emotional responses elicited by films allow for a greater passion than some books and the emotions can spur greater inquiry to the past. Thus, I agree with Davis and believe that the film medium certainly has an important place in history. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; article, I thought it was interesting to see how the themes of movies have changed through the years to reflect what was happening in society at that particular time, such as the patriotic movies of the 40&amp;#039;s and the sexual revolution of the 60&amp;#039;s and 70&amp;#039;s and yuppies of the 80&amp;#039;s. Even today you can see specific themes like this-such as the movies about the war in Iraq that have recently come out.  It will be interesting to go back and view some of the new films in about 10 years to see if our perspective has changed.  ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan about the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  I usually go to movies that say they are &amp;quot;based on a true story&amp;quot; and then end up going out of the theater and researching the subject myself-to get more information or clarify things. I think that statement can be a good tool to start people off in at least a small amount of research on the topic.  My niece (who is 16) hates anything &amp;quot;historical&amp;quot; but will always want to see movies based on an actual event so its an easy way to slip a little history in and then we usually end up discussing the movie and it always leads to us looking things up about the subject and she does not even realize she is learning history! ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the introduction of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History &amp;#039;&amp;#039; was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood&amp;#039;s portrayal of history in movies.  I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that &amp;quot;movies can communicate important ideas about the past&amp;quot; (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction to Movies and American Society argues that movies teach us how to think, specifically mentioning race. While movies and other things do in fact teach cultural values, those values must already existed within the culture to begin with.  If a movie taught a value that was not already known in America, it would not be understood and Americans would likely not view or purchase the movie.  Movies reproduce culture more than they create it. ~Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing.  It&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; in that it&amp;#039;s a part of our national identity and perceived heritage.  If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s Braveheart), he or she will be criticized.  But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been as effective a film.  Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral.  Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium.  What&amp;#039;s important isn&amp;#039;t that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so.  Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve been talking a lot about whether it&amp;#039;s appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films.  How much artistic license do you think is acceptable?  At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film&amp;#039;s historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The “Slaves on Screen” article focused on how the filmmakers created their depictions of history and how they can be a useful tool in understanding the past.  It was noticeably silent, though, on how the person who views the movie brings his or her own preconceptions and cultural values to the film.  For instance, when the movie Easy Rider was first released, many people thought the director was on the side of the people that kill the main characters at the end because they viewed that action as a good thing. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Wesley&amp;#039;s earlier comment on movies reproducing culture--  They are responsible for reinforcing and solidifying stereotypes or cultural views already in existence to some extent, and the more that do so, the more discourse created, the more effective they are. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Why Movies Matter&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, Ross tells us that &amp;quot;whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality.&amp;quot;  This statement ties together points in the introduction and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Slaves on Screen&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, and means that it doesn&amp;#039;t really matter whether a spectator of a &amp;#039;based on a true story&amp;#039; film leaves wondering how much was accurate.  If the director can successfully get his vision across or emphasize a view or stereotype, mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was really interesting how in the introduction to the book the author said movies were not historic because they &amp;quot;do not provide accurate, authentic, truthful, or objective treatments of history&amp;quot; (p. 4). While some of those things may be true about movies they are also true about history in general. Every event in the past that is retold by historians is biased in some way and how do we know what is the true, we can only guess based on evidence. Movies may be more colorful in their depiction of the past but to say they are not historical because they are not objective or truthful would mean that historians should discount any primary source written by a person because people are biased and liars. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to read in the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; article that all the first major movie producers were immigrants. I am in two immigration classes and writin my senior thesis on the topic so things related to immigration stand out to me. I thought it was interesting because movies are something Americans take pride in and so to learn that the industry was founded by people we at one time did not consider to be Americans is amazing to me and I think it shows just how important immigration is to the heritage of this country. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-16T01:54:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here.  What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren&amp;#039;t feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on Jessica&amp;#039;s point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home.  -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading accounts of numerous women&amp;#039;s lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college.  That relates a lot to what we&amp;#039;ve been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn&amp;#039;t really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews.  Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children.  In one interview it talked about how married women didn&amp;#039;t work or simply weren&amp;#039;t hired as well as didn&amp;#039;t come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we&amp;#039;ve talked a lot about in this class.  Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn&amp;#039;t then you went off to college.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family.  I liked Jessica&amp;#039;s remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president.  I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn&amp;#039;t everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn&amp;#039;t seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that?  Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don&amp;#039;t think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how many women were divorced. We have learned in class that divorce was not common and sometimes even looked down upon yet several of the women interviewed were divorced. I also found it interesting that none of them gave a really solid answer when asked why they got a divorce. Most seemed to just ignore the question all together. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-16T01:46:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In addition to the interview writing assignment, everyone is expected to look over the other interviews and discuss them in our wiki here.  What patterns do you see?  What experiences stand out?  Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we&amp;#039;ve talked about in class?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 17 (though you are responsible for reading it).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When looking through all of the interviews, there were a lot of different trends that stand out. The first thing I noticed was that many of the women who grew up in rural areas had similar experiences in small school houses and growing up with farm life. Some of them noted that they had less technology available to them that many other women, who lived in less rural areas, started using earlier. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is important to consider geography when looking at some of the different experiences of women in the 20th century. I don’t know how much it was emphasized in my paper, but in my interview with Pat Teevan she said that women were expected to stay at home until they were married, but she didn’t marry. If she stayed in Boston then she would have been expected to live in her parent’s house, that’s why she moved to DC. This was also seen in the interview with Mary Nolan in Pennsylvania, as a single girl, “she never considered getting her own apartment.” When looking at the interviews of many of the women who grew up in the north (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, NY, etc.), it seems like a lot of these women were more likely to be independent. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After looking through a lot of the papers the trend I noticed was that all these women had some type of education. Also a lot of theme weren&amp;#039;t feminists, however their mothers did encourage them to go to school until high school and even a good amount went to college. But a good majority did leave high school get a job and get married, a trend that I noticed is a lot of them had children with in the first year or so of their marriages. There was no wait period like today, some people wait 5-6 years. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My grandma made a point of noting that when she was in high school her mother made sure she learned something she could use later in life. She took shorthand, typing and stenography, all skills used in clerical work, some of the other women I noticed had taken similar courses and took jobs as secretaries. The women in a lot of these papers took the jobs that were saved for women, secretarial and school teachers. My grandma before she even finished school was doing some clerical work, and when she graduated she went into the military but ended up being a secretary in the pentagon. All these women were your typical American women, taking the stereotypical job and then became a homemaker. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Commenting on Jessica&amp;#039;s point on how northern girls seemed like they were more important. I feel like this could because of the fact that a large portion of the north was cities, NY, CONN is very close to NY, Mass has Boston, with all these cities there are mor job options. Also girls that wanted to get out of their rural homes went to Urban area to find a job an a place to live and as we know there are thousands of apartments women could move into. From what we have learned, women in the past who went to the cities were always more independent, because they had left home.  -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading accounts of numerous women&amp;#039;s lives it becomes quite clear how rare it was for women living during the 20th century to become professionals. Even when these women did go to college and were encouraged by their mothers to be independent, it seemed as if most ended up finding a husband and adapting to his lifestyle. I think that there would be such a drastic difference in the probability of getting an interview with a professional woman today. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something I noticed alot in the interviews were how many women actually went to college.  That relates a lot to what we&amp;#039;ve been looking at in this class, because so many women did go to college but it oftened so to be a waist because they didn&amp;#039;t really use their education, and that is apparent too in these interviews.  Some either thought they were going to college but then suddenly decided to get married instead, or others did go to college and then they got married but still ended up staying home once married or had children.  In one interview it talked about how married women didn&amp;#039;t work or simply weren&amp;#039;t hired as well as didn&amp;#039;t come back to work at all once married or pregnant, which is something we&amp;#039;ve talked a lot about in this class.  Even in my own interview, she realized that a lot her friends got married right out of high school and if you didn&amp;#039;t then you went off to college.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also I there were several women who experienced war at one point in time in their life, whether it was WWII or Vietnam, they remember it and the affects it had on their family.  I liked Jessica&amp;#039;s remark about geography, because two of the interviews (maybe more) were women who were from West Viginia, and I thought it was particularly interesting how segregation played no part in their part of the country, and even how her school had a black student body president.  I think that is amazing and even goes to prove that racism wasn&amp;#039;t everywhere, even though it was wide spread through the country that there was at least once place were it didn&amp;#039;t seem to matter. I wonder if there were any other places like that?  Because you mostly here about the segragation in the south, well what about the rest of the country?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s interview with Audrey Gunnoe really struck me as different from other interviews of women who grew up in rural areas. The fact that she was discouraged from school and expected to marry so early seems very out of place compared to the US as a whole. I also thought that her transition from the extremes of rural to urban life also made her experiences (her career and later beliefs) stand out from the others. It seemed that so much of what path the others eventually took was determined by where they grew up and what ideals their parents enstilled in them. With Gunnoe this was not the case. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another pattern that I noticed was just how pervasive WWII was on these women specifically because of how many had husbands/boyfriends who served. I don&amp;#039;t think that there is the same impact on women today because of how rare it is to hear a woman in college talk about her boyfriend or husband serving. Although it definitely happens it is nothing compared to the recollection of the women we interviewed. All the men, rural, urban, suburban, were serving. The impact of the distance between loved ones seemed more relevant on the memory of these women than the jobs the war opened. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that many of the women fulfilled the role of stay-at-home mother and did so willingly. Many said they enjoyed being home for their children and would not have done anything different if given the chance. I was also surprised by the number of them who said they did not feel presured into that life. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-10T01:49:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too have heard of Rosa Parks story but never the details like this article had.  What I thought was so interesting was how a bus boycott lasted a year and how all of the black people denied having anything to do with it, and their white bosses went along with the lie, because they needed people to do stuff around their house, and take care of their children. Not only that but everyone new that everyone was lying and there was nothing that anyone could do about it other than cops writing stupid tickets. When the boycott was over I wonder if their were still problems (I imagine so), because there is always that one person who ruins it for everyone, or starts trouble.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the piece this week that focused mostly on Mrs. Rose Parks in MAW.  I always knew the general story about Mrs. Parks, but never details to this extent.  I knew there was a bus boycott, but I didn&amp;#039;t realize it went on for a year.  Just think of the revenue the bus companies suffered.  I wonder why it lasted so long.  Mrs. Parks really was a remarkable woman though.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this article on Rosa Parks.  I knew about her and what she did but never really knew all the details.  There seemed to be so much more to the story than I had always been told.  I really liked how it talked about going to get her at the jail and then the trial.  It is amazing to me that she started so much without really realizing it. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story of Rosa Parks to me is both saddening and uplighting at the same time if that&amp;#039;s possible. We know the black perspective on the issue but what was the white&amp;#039;s perspective? Did all the white feels the same way and come to the same agreement or were there varying opinions? What did the white people on the bus think that day in history? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in the reading in “Civil Rights Activists” (in MAW) that the black men and women who participated in the bus boycott refused to admit it. Were there any legal actions that could have been taken for participating in the boycott? It also talked about some of the legal actions that were taken toward both black and white women who seemed to be aiding in the boycott. “The black people formed car pools, and the city tried cracking down on them by arresting the drivers for going two miles an hour over the speed limit,” (224). Were they really being arrested in the sense that they were being taken to jail, or were they fined and ticketed? You would think that arresting a lot of people for a crime this small would eventually just cost the city more money and resources than necessary. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece well pretty awesome. I agree with Kelley when she said, its amazing how Rosa Parks started such a strong movement without even realizing it. Something that I also found interesting was the unspoken support, when people would talk to others about not taking the bus, that it is nice of them to support the boycott, and people would reply with any excuse possible on why they are not taking the bus. I also liked how the white women supported it as well, even though it was for their own agenda, but when the police started to pull them over I loved how they would respond,saying if you want to come clean my house then fine but until then I will keep driving her to and from her home. The fact that even whites were participating in the boycott really shows the impact that Rosa Parks had. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought a really important part of the Montgomery bus boycotts was the fact that it was almost necessary that black women stayed quiet. I would have assumed, not reading this piece, that most participants would have been proud of being a part of the cause and I was quite surprised to find out that they were silent. I didn&amp;#039;t think that admitting to participating could be as risky as it was. In reality women could have lost jobs or face legal fines for such a simple action. Their silence was ultimately their weapon. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really interesting to read about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott.  It was interesting how those who were boycotting would not admit they were doing it. Were they expecting a backlash for boycotting? The way I have always thought of the civil rights movement was that they were proud of their convictions and strongly supported the movement. By boycotting they were supporting the movement but why deny it when asked? That seems strange to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like many of my classmates the detail about this article that struck me was the fact that many of the men and women who were participating in the boycott denied it when they were asked. I would have thought that because its an issue they clearly felt strongly about that they would be willing to admit that they were a part of it. I also enjoyed seeing that the white women supported the black women through this, even if it was simply because they needed someone at their house to do the work. Although i do wonder, how much of it was because of that or were they, like the black men and women, using it as an excuse to cover up their support?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was very interesting. I too have heard the Rosa Parks story many times but never with this much detail. The thing that surprised me the most was the support the white women gave the black women. I was not surprised the balck women lied about their involvement because that would be dangerous for them. I was surprised to hear about all the white women who would drive their black maids to and from work and then deny it. It was also interesting to read about how the cops tried to stop it by giving tickets to any one they thought was supporting the boycott. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cynthia Griggs Fleming, “Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women’s Leadership in SNCC” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire time I was reading this essay, the only thing running through my mind was, &amp;quot;Good grief Robinson is incredible!&amp;quot;  What I truly loved about her is that she cared for the movement.  She wasn&amp;#039;t about appearances, she wasn&amp;#039;t about making herself known, she wasn&amp;#039;t about making the world aware of how much she did, she just went after what she believed in.  She pushed boundaries and, as a black woman during a white return to domesticity, really stood up for her beliefs.  We read and learn about Rosa Parks and Ella Baker and all these other prominent women involved with the Civil Rights movement and all of it is empowering.  Reading about even more women than the &amp;quot;big names&amp;quot; that we&amp;#039;ve all known since elementary school makes it that much more impressive.  These women went against overwhelming odds and had their femininity attacked because of the way they stepped outside their &amp;quot;feminine roles.&amp;quot;  It&amp;#039;s impressive how involved women were in the Civil Rights movement, as well as how high up their positions were within the organizations.  However, I&amp;#039;m still having a hard time grasping the fact that Ruby was a debutante.  And, as a former majorette myself, I&amp;#039;m proud to learn she twirled a baton at one point too. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed this article and fully believe that Ruby Doris Smith Robinson is a role model that all people should look up to. She was involved in the movement because it was something that she really believed in, and she truly did not want any publicity out of it, which I loved reading because a lot of times today when someone does something good its always wondering if they did it because they cared or because they wanted the attention. I also enjoyed reading about how their femininity came under attack because of their leadership positions- but I&amp;#039;m also wondering how often this still happens today?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&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;
After reading the article in MP, I feel like the arguments Chicanas had were no different than other races. Obviously they had some fair arguments to make but issues such as female oppresion and childcare, didn&amp;#039;t everyone have that same problem unless you were a member of the upper class? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading in MP deals with the Chicanas growing awareness of their oppression. Many of the challenges they faced were similar to those of women of other races, however, they were oppressed as a “nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Within their own race, men had trouble dealing with their opposition to their oppression because they feared that it wouldn’t threaten their own power. Many of the things these women fought for, affected them as women (i.e. abortion, childcare, contraception, etc…), so how would this “pose a threat to their ability to rule?” (456). I think Vidal makes a good point in the end when she basically says that there needs to be equality within the race itself (i.e. between chicanas and Chicanos) before the race, in its entirety, can be seen as an equal in society. This brings up the idea or debate on how much influence intra-racial discrimination has on inter-racial discrimination. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rose, after reading this article I had a hard time seeing how the problems the Chicanas had were any different then the problems of other women. I understand that people of different races do have different issues and experiences, I just felt like this article did not do a good job of demonstarting those differences. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview really lets the reader get a feel for how life was for her and her children.  There were hard times, but they dealt with them.  She discussed the problems she had with finding a house and a job just because of the color of her skin.  She also never agreed with the Vietnam and what it did to children and their mother&amp;#039;s who couldn&amp;#039;t afford to send their children to college to get out of the draft.  I know my dad had a draft card # for the Vietnam war and almost had to go... they got within 10 calls of his number before the war was declared over.  I would hate to know the feeling that just because you can&amp;#039;t afford college, you HAVE to go fight that war...  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview, she talks about how her and her husband had a hard time buying a home, and she addressed the issue how blacks also had a hard time getting jobs.  I had to read &amp;quot;The Orgins of the Urban Crisis&amp;quot; for this week in my American Landscape class and it talks about exactly what she has adressed here in her interview. You would think that realtors wouldn&amp;#039;t care who they were selling too, as long as they were making money doing it.  I also couldn&amp;#039;t believe how difficult they made it for black people to get a job. Also the book talked about how the realtors would use the fact that whites wanted to move if one black person moved into their neighborhood to their advantage to profit more. Although it only talked about the city of Detroit this obviously happened in other places.  Most neighborhoods today are still mostly one race. Do we do it on purpose or not still? How many of you have come from a mostly white or mostly black neighborhood?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview was very interesting and eye opening for me.  I knew about the hardships that blacks faced but at the same time I really didn&amp;#039;t understand them.  Reading her interview really showed what she had to deal with.  I guess since it was more like a story or listening to someone tell stories it made it all seem much more real. I was really surprised to read about how her daughter who was 3 years younger then her son was able to finish school at the same time just because she was interested in studying.  That is something so difficult to do and I would have thought it almost not possible for blacks at the time due to segregation. When she talked about Martin Luther King&amp;#039;s assassination it made it really showed her feeling.  It was a hard time for many people and you can really see how is death affected her when she said &amp;quot;When Martin Luther King died I felt as though the light had gone out of the world.&amp;quot; -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me my favorite history to read are the personal accounts of real people, anyone can write about anything, but the emotions that come alive in a personal account is so much more. Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview really fascinated me, because for years and this semester I have been learning about all the hardships blacks had to face, but I really didn&amp;#039;t know the real extent of it all. I love that her children succeeded in their lives despite all the segregation, that her daughter who was 3 years younger then her brother graduated at the same time. I feel like this was possible because they had lived in the north but, the north wasn&amp;#039;t that much of an easier place to live then the south. I think my favorite line was when Craig was talking about how she went out to get a job when she finished high school and she was told there was no way she was going to find a job. When she says &amp;quot;And here I was dressed lovely, thinking that was the right first step. And here was some dowdy, ugly woman telling me I couldn&amp;#039;t have a job.&amp;quot; I just started laughing because it is a response any woman would have given to the situation. I can totally see where Craig is coming from, why is this ugly woman so special that she can have a job over a pretty black girl? If you are going to base hiring people on skin color why not hire them based on their looks as well?It truly is amazing to me how these people went through so much and so many of them came out with their heads held high, it really shows how strong a people they were and are today. -- Amanda Taub&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-10T01:29:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too have heard of Rosa Parks story but never the details like this article had.  What I thought was so interesting was how a bus boycott lasted a year and how all of the black people denied having anything to do with it, and their white bosses went along with the lie, because they needed people to do stuff around their house, and take care of their children. Not only that but everyone new that everyone was lying and there was nothing that anyone could do about it other than cops writing stupid tickets. When the boycott was over I wonder if their were still problems (I imagine so), because there is always that one person who ruins it for everyone, or starts trouble.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the piece this week that focused mostly on Mrs. Rose Parks in MAW.  I always knew the general story about Mrs. Parks, but never details to this extent.  I knew there was a bus boycott, but I didn&amp;#039;t realize it went on for a year.  Just think of the revenue the bus companies suffered.  I wonder why it lasted so long.  Mrs. Parks really was a remarkable woman though.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this article on Rosa Parks.  I knew about her and what she did but never really knew all the details.  There seemed to be so much more to the story than I had always been told.  I really liked how it talked about going to get her at the jail and then the trial.  It is amazing to me that she started so much without really realizing it. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The story of Rosa Parks to me is both saddening and uplighting at the same time if that&amp;#039;s possible. We know the black perspective on the issue but what was the white&amp;#039;s perspective? Did all the white feels the same way and come to the same agreement or were there varying opinions? What did the white people on the bus think that day in history? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in the reading in “Civil Rights Activists” (in MAW) that the black men and women who participated in the bus boycott refused to admit it. Were there any legal actions that could have been taken for participating in the boycott? It also talked about some of the legal actions that were taken toward both black and white women who seemed to be aiding in the boycott. “The black people formed car pools, and the city tried cracking down on them by arresting the drivers for going two miles an hour over the speed limit,” (224). Were they really being arrested in the sense that they were being taken to jail, or were they fined and ticketed? You would think that arresting a lot of people for a crime this small would eventually just cost the city more money and resources than necessary. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this piece well pretty awesome. I agree with Kelley when she said, its amazing how Rosa Parks started such a strong movement without even realizing it. Something that I also found interesting was the unspoken support, when people would talk to others about not taking the bus, that it is nice of them to support the boycott, and people would reply with any excuse possible on why they are not taking the bus. I also liked how the white women supported it as well, even though it was for their own agenda, but when the police started to pull them over I loved how they would respond,saying if you want to come clean my house then fine but until then I will keep driving her to and from her home. The fact that even whites were participating in the boycott really shows the impact that Rosa Parks had. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought a really important part of the Montgomery bus boycotts was the fact that it was almost necessary that black women stayed quiet. I would have assumed, not reading this piece, that most participants would have been proud of being a part of the cause and I was quite surprised to find out that they were silent. I didn&amp;#039;t think that admitting to participating could be as risky as it was. In reality women could have lost jobs or face legal fines for such a simple action. Their silence was ultimately their weapon. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it really interesting to read about Rosa Parks and the bus boycott.  It was interesting how those who were boycotting would not admit they were doing it. Were they expecting a backlash for boycotting? The way I have always thought of the civil rights movement was that they were proud of their convictions and strongly supported the movement. By boycotting they were supporting the movement but why deny it when asked? That seems strange to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like many of my classmates the detail about this article that struck me was the fact that many of the men and women who were participating in the boycott denied it when they were asked. I would have thought that because its an issue they clearly felt strongly about that they would be willing to admit that they were a part of it. I also enjoyed seeing that the white women supported the black women through this, even if it was simply because they needed someone at their house to do the work. Although i do wonder, how much of it was because of that or were they, like the black men and women, using it as an excuse to cover up their support?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this article was very interesting. I too have heard the Rosa Parks story many times but never with this much detail. The thing that surprised me the most was the support the white women gave the black women. I was not surprised the balck women lied about their involvement because that would be dangerous for them. I was surprised to hear about all the white women who would drive their black maids to and from work and then deny it. It was also interesting to read about how the cops tried to stop it by giving tickets to any one they thought was supporting the boycott. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cynthia Griggs Fleming, “Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women’s Leadership in SNCC” ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The entire time I was reading this essay, the only thing running through my mind was, &amp;quot;Good grief Robinson is incredible!&amp;quot;  What I truly loved about her is that she cared for the movement.  She wasn&amp;#039;t about appearances, she wasn&amp;#039;t about making herself known, she wasn&amp;#039;t about making the world aware of how much she did, she just went after what she believed in.  She pushed boundaries and, as a black woman during a white return to domesticity, really stood up for her beliefs.  We read and learn about Rosa Parks and Ella Baker and all these other prominent women involved with the Civil Rights movement and all of it is empowering.  Reading about even more women than the &amp;quot;big names&amp;quot; that we&amp;#039;ve all known since elementary school makes it that much more impressive.  These women went against overwhelming odds and had their femininity attacked because of the way they stepped outside their &amp;quot;feminine roles.&amp;quot;  It&amp;#039;s impressive how involved women were in the Civil Rights movement, as well as how high up their positions were within the organizations.  However, I&amp;#039;m still having a hard time grasping the fact that Ruby was a debutante.  And, as a former majorette myself, I&amp;#039;m proud to learn she twirled a baton at one point too. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed this article and fully believe that Ruby Doris Smith Robinson is a role model that all people should look up to. She was involved in the movement because it was something that she really believed in, and she truly did not want any publicity out of it, which I loved reading because a lot of times today when someone does something good its always wondering if they did it because they cared or because they wanted the attention. I also enjoyed reading about how their femininity came under attack because of their leadership positions- but I&amp;#039;m also wondering how often this still happens today?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&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;
After reading the article in MP, I feel like the arguments Chicanas had were no different than other races. Obviously they had some fair arguments to make but issues such as female oppresion and childcare, didn&amp;#039;t everyone have that same problem unless you were a member of the upper class? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading in MP deals with the Chicanas growing awareness of their oppression. Many of the challenges they faced were similar to those of women of other races, however, they were oppressed as a “nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Within their own race, men had trouble dealing with their opposition to their oppression because they feared that it wouldn’t threaten their own power. Many of the things these women fought for, affected them as women (i.e. abortion, childcare, contraception, etc…), so how would this “pose a threat to their ability to rule?” (456). I think Vidal makes a good point in the end when she basically says that there needs to be equality within the race itself (i.e. between chicanas and Chicanos) before the race, in its entirety, can be seen as an equal in society. This brings up the idea or debate on how much influence intra-racial discrimination has on inter-racial discrimination. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mrs. Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview really lets the reader get a feel for how life was for her and her children.  There were hard times, but they dealt with them.  She discussed the problems she had with finding a house and a job just because of the color of her skin.  She also never agreed with the Vietnam and what it did to children and their mother&amp;#039;s who couldn&amp;#039;t afford to send their children to college to get out of the draft.  I know my dad had a draft card # for the Vietnam war and almost had to go... they got within 10 calls of his number before the war was declared over.  I would hate to know the feeling that just because you can&amp;#039;t afford college, you HAVE to go fight that war...  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview, she talks about how her and her husband had a hard time buying a home, and she addressed the issue how blacks also had a hard time getting jobs.  I had to read &amp;quot;The Orgins of the Urban Crisis&amp;quot; for this week in my American Landscape class and it talks about exactly what she has adressed here in her interview. You would think that realtors wouldn&amp;#039;t care who they were selling too, as long as they were making money doing it.  I also couldn&amp;#039;t believe how difficult they made it for black people to get a job. Also the book talked about how the realtors would use the fact that whites wanted to move if one black person moved into their neighborhood to their advantage to profit more. Although it only talked about the city of Detroit this obviously happened in other places.  Most neighborhoods today are still mostly one race. Do we do it on purpose or not still? How many of you have come from a mostly white or mostly black neighborhood?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview was very interesting and eye opening for me.  I knew about the hardships that blacks faced but at the same time I really didn&amp;#039;t understand them.  Reading her interview really showed what she had to deal with.  I guess since it was more like a story or listening to someone tell stories it made it all seem much more real. I was really surprised to read about how her daughter who was 3 years younger then her son was able to finish school at the same time just because she was interested in studying.  That is something so difficult to do and I would have thought it almost not possible for blacks at the time due to segregation. When she talked about Martin Luther King&amp;#039;s assassination it made it really showed her feeling.  It was a hard time for many people and you can really see how is death affected her when she said &amp;quot;When Martin Luther King died I felt as though the light had gone out of the world.&amp;quot; -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me my favorite history to read are the personal accounts of real people, anyone can write about anything, but the emotions that come alive in a personal account is so much more. Naomi Craig&amp;#039;s interview really fascinated me, because for years and this semester I have been learning about all the hardships blacks had to face, but I really didn&amp;#039;t know the real extent of it all. I love that her children succeeded in their lives despite all the segregation, that her daughter who was 3 years younger then her brother graduated at the same time. I feel like this was possible because they had lived in the north but, the north wasn&amp;#039;t that much of an easier place to live then the south. I think my favorite line was when Craig was talking about how she went out to get a job when she finished high school and she was told there was no way she was going to find a job. When she says &amp;quot;And here I was dressed lovely, thinking that was the right first step. And here was some dowdy, ugly woman telling me I couldn&amp;#039;t have a job.&amp;quot; I just started laughing because it is a response any woman would have given to the situation. I can totally see where Craig is coming from, why is this ugly woman so special that she can have a job over a pretty black girl? If you are going to base hiring people on skin color why not hire them based on their looks as well?It truly is amazing to me how these people went through so much and so many of them came out with their heads held high, it really shows how strong a people they were and are today. -- Amanda Taub&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-03T03:21:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Debate topics or comparative questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the article &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family.&amp;quot; I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren&amp;#039;t that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn&amp;#039;t need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;perfect&amp;#039;&amp;#039; manicured family?&lt;br /&gt;
-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs.  It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school.  Also the attitude of if &amp;#039;one can&amp;#039;t go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.&amp;#039; I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50&amp;#039;s wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other&amp;#039;s dream possible. --Julie Robert&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article too.  It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids.  It showed how women were torn between work and the family.  For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job.  It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It&amp;#039;s a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from Betty Jeanne Boggs’ piece that staying at home with the kids was still absolutely seen as the women’s job. The pressure she felt to provide for the baby and not burden her husband (and not expect him to help her) is ridiculous. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting because of the role the husband played in raising the kids. It seems to contradict everything we have read about. The mother was the one with the job while the husband was in school and raising the kids. It was also interesting to see the mother&amp;#039;s very torn emotions about her role in this backwards family. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wilma Mankiller, &amp;quot;Indian Relocation&amp;quot; - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved.  The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren&amp;#039;t).  You have to remember at this time the government wasn&amp;#039;t too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the most interesting thing about this reading was that it showed how powerful propaganda was and still can be. Here was a family who was by all accounts happy, the children and wife seemed satisfied. They may have lived an archaic life by other standards, but they had never known anything different. Yet the BIA convinced the husband that by moving halfway across the country he could be like the idealized middle class family on the front of a brochure. The same was true with the WWII and post-WWII propaganda we studied in class, there the government seemed to have the ability to turn (most)of the publics&amp;#039; desire to have women work on and off by changing the message on a poster. Sometimes playing on a person&amp;#039;s hopes, dreams, and desire to fit in can be far more powerful than any weapon. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn&amp;#039;t feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today&amp;#039;s society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo.  Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn&amp;#039;t lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about.  I would have been scared out of my mind too.  There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth and Michelle mentioned in their posts how alone Joanna Rubin was in her private ordeal.  Abortion is not just a physical ordeal.  Rubin says that she was okay with her decision in aborting a child, but this is the type of life event that she is less likely to share and will probably conceal.   At the time, abortion was illegal in the states and carried a stigma that would have probably alienated her and prevented her seeking emotional support from professionals and other women. Abortion doesn&amp;#039;t just take a fetus away, it creates a void and replaces it with guilt and shame.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn&amp;#039;t see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It&amp;#039;s not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion  in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get &amp;quot;drinks&amp;quot; with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can tell from Joanna Rubin’s story that abortion was very difficult in the 1960s. I know that since abortions were illegal and therefore probably undocumented… are there any statistics on how many abortions were conducted during this time period? Also, I know that women that were pregnant and didn’t want to be always felt trapped, but wasn’t abortion always an option… even the “backroom” dangerous kind? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ethel Barol Taylor, &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying &amp;quot;Take your children off milk,&amp;quot; and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940&amp;#039;s and the 1950&amp;#039;s in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980&amp;#039;s.  Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting because harmful pesticides is a problem still dealt with today. I was surprised to see that she was the driving force behind getting changes made. I was also surprised to see how many people seemed to take her word over all the heads of the pesticide companies especially since it dealt with science and that was still seen as a man&amp;#039;s field. It was interesting to see how popular her book became and how willing she was to put herself in the spotlight at a time when women were supposed to be in the home. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa Randall Church - &amp;quot;Parents, Architects of Peace&amp;quot; 1946 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I&amp;#039;m wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It&amp;#039;s very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth&amp;#039;s inquiry, I don&amp;#039;t believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950&amp;#039;s saw more of a return to the &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today&amp;#039;s society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn&amp;#039;t teach them the discipline  that children need to learn. I found this connection to today&amp;#039;s world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity.  It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society&amp;#039;s ideals have permanently lowered an individual&amp;#039;s self-esteem.  I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pauli Murray, 1947  ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article.  I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance.  How strange is that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Pauli Murray’s piece on what she calls the “Jane Crow” Laws very interesting. It really pointed out all the ways the African American women was viewed below everyone else, both in gender and race. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article in MP, &amp;quot;Nonconformist Joyce Johnson...&amp;quot; was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn&amp;#039;t matter, as long as you didn&amp;#039;t go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions?  I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this &amp;quot;escort&amp;quot; invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That advertising executive is the creepiest person I have ever read about, seen in a movie, or met in person. Are there records of these type of abortion liasons - people who knew doctors, and who young girls knew to call to set up a meeting? I imagine this guy could make alot of money either getting paid directly by the girls or taking a kickback from the doctor, or maybe he just liked it in some weird disgusting way. I would have opted for the trip to puerto rico if i was an unmarried pregnant woman in the 1950s. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter from black reader to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in 1957 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality.  “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This letter was interesting to me because it showed how a middle of the road black lesbian woman felt about being publicly gay. She compared the experience to being black saying something to the affect that black people used to be told to dress and behave in a way that was socially acceptable to white people, but now she didnt flinch when she saw an black person acting differently. Now she was urging lesbians to act socially accpetable so straight people would accept them, because otherwise a &amp;quot;butch&amp;quot; stereotype would shut down the means of communication which I think she saw as the road to acceptance. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Friedan, &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading I believe that the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; is some kind of depression.  I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life.  They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing.  They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn&amp;#039;t even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women.  Betty Jeanne Bogg&amp;#039;s reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much.  She states that several times through out her reading.  She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she &amp;quot;really enjoyed that job.&amp;quot; (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz&amp;#039;s article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that &amp;quot;wages gave women a feeling of independence.&amp;quot; (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time.  Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name.&amp;quot; --Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually felt a little dumb with this week&amp;#039;s readings.  There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was &amp;quot;Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970.&amp;quot;  They mentioned &amp;#039;therapeutic abortions&amp;#039; and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about.  I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading.  --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vicki Ruiz, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Star Struck&amp;#039;: Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950&amp;quot; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-03T03:20:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Debate topics or comparative questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the article &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family.&amp;quot; I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren&amp;#039;t that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn&amp;#039;t need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;perfect&amp;#039;&amp;#039; manicured family?&lt;br /&gt;
-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs.  It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school.  Also the attitude of if &amp;#039;one can&amp;#039;t go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.&amp;#039; I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50&amp;#039;s wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other&amp;#039;s dream possible. --Julie Robert&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article too.  It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids.  It showed how women were torn between work and the family.  For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job.  It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It&amp;#039;s a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from Betty Jeanne Boggs’ piece that staying at home with the kids was still absolutely seen as the women’s job. The pressure she felt to provide for the baby and not burden her husband (and not expect him to help her) is ridiculous. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting because of the role the husband played in raising the kids. It seems to contradict everything we have read about. The mother was the one with the job while the husband was in school and raising the kids. It was also interesting to see the mother&amp;#039;s very torn emotions about her role in this backwards family. - Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wilma Mankiller, &amp;quot;Indian Relocation&amp;quot; - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved.  The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren&amp;#039;t).  You have to remember at this time the government wasn&amp;#039;t too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the most interesting thing about this reading was that it showed how powerful propaganda was and still can be. Here was a family who was by all accounts happy, the children and wife seemed satisfied. They may have lived an archaic life by other standards, but they had never known anything different. Yet the BIA convinced the husband that by moving halfway across the country he could be like the idealized middle class family on the front of a brochure. The same was true with the WWII and post-WWII propaganda we studied in class, there the government seemed to have the ability to turn (most)of the publics&amp;#039; desire to have women work on and off by changing the message on a poster. Sometimes playing on a person&amp;#039;s hopes, dreams, and desire to fit in can be far more powerful than any weapon. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn&amp;#039;t feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today&amp;#039;s society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo.  Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn&amp;#039;t lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about.  I would have been scared out of my mind too.  There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth and Michelle mentioned in their posts how alone Joanna Rubin was in her private ordeal.  Abortion is not just a physical ordeal.  Rubin says that she was okay with her decision in aborting a child, but this is the type of life event that she is less likely to share and will probably conceal.   At the time, abortion was illegal in the states and carried a stigma that would have probably alienated her and prevented her seeking emotional support from professionals and other women. Abortion doesn&amp;#039;t just take a fetus away, it creates a void and replaces it with guilt and shame.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn&amp;#039;t see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It&amp;#039;s not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion  in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get &amp;quot;drinks&amp;quot; with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can tell from Joanna Rubin’s story that abortion was very difficult in the 1960s. I know that since abortions were illegal and therefore probably undocumented… are there any statistics on how many abortions were conducted during this time period? Also, I know that women that were pregnant and didn’t want to be always felt trapped, but wasn’t abortion always an option… even the “backroom” dangerous kind? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ethel Barol Taylor, &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying &amp;quot;Take your children off milk,&amp;quot; and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940&amp;#039;s and the 1950&amp;#039;s in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980&amp;#039;s.  Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting because harmful pesticides is a problem still dealt with today. I was surprised to see that she was the driving force behind getting changes made. I was also surprised to see how many people seemed to take her word over all the heads of the pesticide companies especially since it dealt with science and that was still seen as a man&amp;#039;s field. It was interesting to see how popular her book became and how willing she was to put herself in the spotlight at a time when women were supposed to be in the home. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa Randall Church - &amp;quot;Parents, Architects of Peace&amp;quot; 1946 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I&amp;#039;m wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It&amp;#039;s very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth&amp;#039;s inquiry, I don&amp;#039;t believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950&amp;#039;s saw more of a return to the &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today&amp;#039;s society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn&amp;#039;t teach them the discipline  that children need to learn. I found this connection to today&amp;#039;s world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity.  It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society&amp;#039;s ideals have permanently lowered an individual&amp;#039;s self-esteem.  I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pauli Murray, 1947  ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article.  I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance.  How strange is that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Pauli Murray’s piece on what she calls the “Jane Crow” Laws very interesting. It really pointed out all the ways the African American women was viewed below everyone else, both in gender and race. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article in MP, &amp;quot;Nonconformist Joyce Johnson...&amp;quot; was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn&amp;#039;t matter, as long as you didn&amp;#039;t go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions?  I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this &amp;quot;escort&amp;quot; invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That advertising executive is the creepiest person I have ever read about, seen in a movie, or met in person. Are there records of these type of abortion liasons - people who knew doctors, and who young girls knew to call to set up a meeting? I imagine this guy could make alot of money either getting paid directly by the girls or taking a kickback from the doctor, or maybe he just liked it in some weird disgusting way. I would have opted for the trip to puerto rico if i was an unmarried pregnant woman in the 1950s. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter from black reader to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in 1957 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality.  “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This letter was interesting to me because it showed how a middle of the road black lesbian woman felt about being publicly gay. She compared the experience to being black saying something to the affect that black people used to be told to dress and behave in a way that was socially acceptable to white people, but now she didnt flinch when she saw an black person acting differently. Now she was urging lesbians to act socially accpetable so straight people would accept them, because otherwise a &amp;quot;butch&amp;quot; stereotype would shut down the means of communication which I think she saw as the road to acceptance. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Friedan, &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading I believe that the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; is some kind of depression.  I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life.  They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing.  They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn&amp;#039;t even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women.  Betty Jeanne Bogg&amp;#039;s reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much.  She states that several times through out her reading.  She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she &amp;quot;really enjoyed that job.&amp;quot; (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz&amp;#039;s article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that &amp;quot;wages gave women a feeling of independence.&amp;quot; (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time.  Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name.&amp;quot; --Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually felt a little dumb with this week&amp;#039;s readings.  There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was &amp;quot;Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970.&amp;quot;  They mentioned &amp;#039;therapeutic abortions&amp;#039; and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about.  I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading.  --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vicki Ruiz, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Star Struck&amp;#039;: Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950&amp;quot; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-04-03T03:13:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Debate topics or comparative questions ==&lt;br /&gt;
Should Rosie the Riveter go home and raise a family or continue working? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the war truly elevate the status of women? -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Jeanne Boggs, &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the article &amp;quot;Balancing Work and Family.&amp;quot; I really loved how this family was backwards, even for the 50s-60s. The husband was still trying to finish school, the wife is working, they aren&amp;#039;t that worried about having children. They accept it when it completely surprises them. I really like the fact that Betty Boggs worked so much and she actually liked her job, she got to choose her job, I also do like that she did try working during her first child. The fact that she at least gave it a shot was impressive to me. When she had her second child it was understandable that she wanted to stay home, also her husband by then didn&amp;#039;t need her to be working all the time to support the family. I know there is a stereotype of families from the 50s, they are in their perfectly manicured houses and have the perfect families were dad works and mom cooks and cleans all day. But was the manicured family real, or was it created by the media? and were families like the Boggs just as &amp;quot;real&amp;quot; as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;perfect&amp;#039;&amp;#039; manicured family?&lt;br /&gt;
-- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked the article by Betty Jeanne Boggs.  It really struck me as out of the time period because of the wife working so the husband could finish school.  Also the attitude of if &amp;#039;one can&amp;#039;t go and have fun, well, the other wont go either because its not fair.&amp;#039; I thought that the relationship she and her husband had was amazing, especially for the 1950s and 60s.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with the above two posts, although this article definitely showed me that the idealistic picture of family during the 50&amp;#039;s wasnt real, and although that was a bit jarring because i had never really thought that such a modern relationship existed back then, it was nice to see that it was possible. Also i feel that often we assume that relationships in the past were purely based on the children both currently present or expected, and that the actual relationship between two people was never prioritized, i like that this is the opposite, this couple truly seems to care for one another if they are blatantly defying the stereotypes of the day in order to make each other&amp;#039;s dream possible. --Julie Robert&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked this article too.  It really showed how women were able to work outside the home but still raise their kids.  It showed how women were torn between work and the family.  For instance Boggs, wanted to stay home with the new baby but she wanted to help her husband who wasnt in good health and she really liked her job.  It surprises me that you can enjoy working in those rough conditions but I guess it was so liberating that they wanted just wanted to be there. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this article too because it emphasized how hard women struggled to have a job and a family life. It&amp;#039;s a struggle for many women today but there are many daycare options and childcare outside of the home is accepted. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine being a working mother with such little support from society. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is clear from Betty Jeanne Boggs’ piece that staying at home with the kids was still absolutely seen as the women’s job. The pressure she felt to provide for the baby and not burden her husband (and not expect him to help her) is ridiculous. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article interesting because of the role the husband played in raising the kids. It seems to contradict everything we have read about. The mother was the one with the job while the husband was in school and raising the kids. It was also interesting to see the mother&amp;#039;s very torn emotions about her role in this backwards family. - Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wilma Mankiller, &amp;quot;Indian Relocation&amp;quot; - 1993 about life in the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After all these years, the government still felt that there was an ‘Indian Problem” that needed to be resolved.  The only way they believed to settle it was by removing the Indians from their reservations. Did the government think that just because they were not holding the Native Americans at gun point meant that it was not seen as another Trail of Tears? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I honestly think that the government knew that what they were doing was wrong but at the same time they thought they were doing the Indians a favor by making life easier for them, getting them jobs, better living conditions (of course they really weren&amp;#039;t).  You have to remember at this time the government wasn&amp;#039;t too thrilled with people beign different, they wanted everyone to be the same to fit some sort of ideal. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the most interesting thing about this reading was that it showed how powerful propaganda was and still can be. Here was a family who was by all accounts happy, the children and wife seemed satisfied. They may have lived an archaic life by other standards, but they had never known anything different. Yet the BIA convinced the husband that by moving halfway across the country he could be like the idealized middle class family on the front of a brochure. The same was true with the WWII and post-WWII propaganda we studied in class, there the government seemed to have the ability to turn (most)of the publics&amp;#039; desire to have women work on and off by changing the message on a poster. Sometimes playing on a person&amp;#039;s hopes, dreams, and desire to fit in can be far more powerful than any weapon. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joanna Rubin, &amp;quot;An Unplanned Pregnancy&amp;quot; 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article really made me sad because the author mentioned feeling so alone because she didn&amp;#039;t feel that she could tell her dad about the pregnancy. I really wonder how many young women today still feel this way, since abortions are still a very heated debate in today&amp;#039;s society. I would imagine that many young women today also feel this sense of loneliness that Joanna Rubin felt during this time in her life. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article made me sad as well because she had no one to turn to other than the guy that got her pregnant, however I thought it was interesting that they went to some random place in Puerto Rico with a doctor named Pardo.  Even though the boyfriend found out about this place through a friend it was no wonder she thought she might end up at some little dark room clinic that really wasn&amp;#039;t lagit. She took a huge chance on flying out to this place that she really new nothing about.  I would have been scared out of my mind too.  There were places in the US that did these illegal abortions so I wonder if many other women went out of the US for abortions?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth and Michelle mentioned in their posts how alone Joanna Rubin was in her private ordeal.  Abortion is not just a physical ordeal.  Rubin says that she was okay with her decision in aborting a child, but this is the type of life event that she is less likely to share and will probably conceal.   At the time, abortion was illegal in the states and carried a stigma that would have probably alienated her and prevented her seeking emotional support from professionals and other women. Abortion doesn&amp;#039;t just take a fetus away, it creates a void and replaces it with guilt and shame.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read Joanna Rubin&amp;#039;s account of her unplanned pregnancy. My question is if JOanna knew the risks of sleeping with her boyfriend and she didn&amp;#039;t see a future with him then why take those huge risks sleeping with him? It&amp;#039;s not like she was uneducated as far as the risks and unsafety of abortions. It is a type of rebellion for women? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in MP it interesting to read about Joyce Johnsons experience obtaining an illegal abortion  in NYC. What really struck me was how she had to get &amp;quot;drinks&amp;quot; with the doctor to set up the abortion appointment. Also that the room where the procedure took place, everything in the room was white. White representing pure and clean with a procedure of quite the opposite. Was this situation a common trend for women at this time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can tell from Joanna Rubin’s story that abortion was very difficult in the 1960s. I know that since abortions were illegal and therefore probably undocumented… are there any statistics on how many abortions were conducted during this time period? Also, I know that women that were pregnant and didn’t want to be always felt trapped, but wasn’t abortion always an option… even the “backroom” dangerous kind? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ethel Barol Taylor, &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article &amp;quot;Women Strike for Peace&amp;quot; by Ethel Barol Taylor really hit home for me. She talks about handing out leaflets saying &amp;quot;Take your children off milk,&amp;quot; and she had very good reason to do so. The nuclear fallout from the testing of the atomic bomb at Los Alamos settled over central Iowa to central Missouri, and some unoccupied parts of Wyoming. My mothers entire family is from central Missouri, and she grew up in central Iowa. The radiation from the fallout affected the grass, which the dairy cows grazed on, and the radiation got into the milk. We are now seeing the results of people who drank radiation poisoned milk in the late 1940&amp;#039;s and the 1950&amp;#039;s in abnormally high instances of thyroid cancer. My grandfather developed thyroid cancer. My grandmother had a gouiter. My mom at age SEVEN also had a thyroid gouiter removed. She later developed thyroid cancer (it was discovered in ~1996) - she had to have her entire thyroid removed. Many of her cousins also developed thyroid cancer. So good for the ladies of Women Strike for Peace! Thanks for trying to raise awareness! - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article was also interesting in that these women ware able to protest in such a lady-like manner that they were able to avoid any harsh criticism. Their handling of protests and of HUAC investigations was so impeccable that HUAC and those like them were being ridiculed. It was an interesting way to use the constraints of the time in their favor. - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rachel Carson Answers her Critics - 1963 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article to be fairly strange since I always associated the controversy regarding DDT and other insecticides with the environmental issues and campaigns of the 1980&amp;#039;s.  Is that true or am I misremembering that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rachel Carson was really ahead of her time in terms of environmentalism. It seems like in postwar America, everyone was ready to use the new technology and new chemicals without thinking about the effects it had on nature. Carson was willing to step up against what everyone believed was progress and ask Americans to take a real look at the way they were affecting the world around them. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louisa Randall Church - &amp;quot;Parents, Architects of Peace&amp;quot; 1946 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first reading in MP by Louisa Randall I thought was very interesting. It takes on more of a psychology perspective to parenting as she outlines what she believes are the major duties that parents have for their children. First of all, when talking about raising the children, Randall uses the term “parents” in the plural and discusses the equal responsibility of the man and the woman in raising the children, which shows a definite shift from the “women in the home” attitude that had prevailed previously. Also, it shows the growing responsibilities that parents have toward children. It extends the previous belief that women were responsible for raising moral children further to include “love and affection, equal rights, discipline, freedom, enrichment, cooperation, and education.” I also found it funny in the end when she suggested that “School officials, everywhere, and citizens, too, should give active support to the idea of training for parenthood…” (412). --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found this article interesting but what stood out to me was the reference to parents (plural) and the emphasis she seems to place on equality within the household. I&amp;#039;m wondering how many women during this period shared this ideal since this is also the period where women were shifting back to the world of the home and were taking on more responsibility for raising the children, which places more importance on her influence than the fathers, which is not equality at all. So I found this article interesting but am slightly confused as to how common her point of view was during this period. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article very interesting, as it does shift way from the previous practice of having only one parent involved in the raising of children. It&amp;#039;s very much like how my parents raised me. However, speaking to Elizabeth&amp;#039;s inquiry, I don&amp;#039;t believe that this was a widespread belief. I think it was an idea that was only beginning to emerge, as the 1950&amp;#039;s saw more of a return to the &amp;quot;cult of domesticity&amp;quot; way of thinking. I know from stories from my mother that her mother was responsible for all punishment if her or my uncle acted up, and she was the one to assign chores, etc. It was the mothers who were primarily responsible for raising the children, and was not as equitable a job as Louisa Randall Church would like. - Sarah Herzog&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Farnham and Lundberg, Modem Woman: The Lost Sex (1947) ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Several of the other readings dealt with the increasing notion of women working outside the home, in addition to raising a family. As Marnia Farnham points out, the progress that has been made in terms of opportunities and technologies for women “serves less to clarify and simplify her life than to complicate it with conflict piled on conflict…” (412). She goes further to say that women are no longer making progress for feminization but have instead begun to become more masculine. Is she suggesting that these women are gradually leaving their traditional gender roles and should be classified as women only in a biological sense? In order to be equal do they both first have to be defined as “masculine?” --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find this article interesting because I actually see a lot of parallels between this period and what some people today still believe. First, I noticed that they attack the idea of child day care systems that, according to them, leave a child unsatisfied. In today&amp;#039;s society I know many women who feel that day care, at least for children below pre-school age, is a bad idea because it doesn&amp;#039;t teach them the discipline  that children need to learn. I found this connection to today&amp;#039;s world very striking as I was reading this article.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am not sure if a woman helped write this article, but I find it interesting that there existed a significant proportion of women activists who did not believe women should work outside of the home and the ideals of the Cult of Domesticity.  It almost seems as if it is one of those cases where society&amp;#039;s ideals have permanently lowered an individual&amp;#039;s self-esteem.  I am very tempted to conclude that it is a very similar lowering of self-esteem as that described in Brown v. Board, but I wouldn&amp;#039;t want to get ahead of myself. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pauli Murray, 1947  ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the constant theme of more women than men attending college appeared in this article.  I guess women have always gone to college in greater numbers than men when given the chance.  How strange is that? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Pauli Murray’s piece on what she calls the “Jane Crow” Laws very interesting. It really pointed out all the ways the African American women was viewed below everyone else, both in gender and race. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Joyce Johnson - 1955 ==&lt;br /&gt;
The article in MP, &amp;quot;Nonconformist Joyce Johnson...&amp;quot; was very interesting. I really liked he reasoning for sleeping around or before marriage. Since you have stayed so late it didn&amp;#039;t matter, as long as you didn&amp;#039;t go home. So instead of going home, you find some guy to go home with. First of all, with rules like that you are asking to get pregnant. This account however, was so shady, the means of getting an abortion is insane. She had to be taken by a sketchy guy, to this horribly mean Dr. who frowns on abortions but will perform them illegally. Did all Doctors frown upon their patients when they give abortions?  I feel that if you are going to risk your life (not meaning death but imprisonment) and medical license you must be pro choice. I think the sketchiest part of all is when the procedure it over with, this &amp;quot;escort&amp;quot; invites you back to fire island, its almost like he is saying, want to get pregnant again this weekend? --- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That advertising executive is the creepiest person I have ever read about, seen in a movie, or met in person. Are there records of these type of abortion liasons - people who knew doctors, and who young girls knew to call to set up a meeting? I imagine this guy could make alot of money either getting paid directly by the girls or taking a kickback from the doctor, or maybe he just liked it in some weird disgusting way. I would have opted for the trip to puerto rico if i was an unmarried pregnant woman in the 1950s. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Letter from black reader to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Ladder&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in 1957 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am impressed how an African American lesbian in the 1950’s would be so open to write to this editor especially being so open with her sexuality.  “The Ladder” seems like another great stepping stone for women to be heard. Were there many other magazines like this as well? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This letter was interesting to me because it showed how a middle of the road black lesbian woman felt about being publicly gay. She compared the experience to being black saying something to the affect that black people used to be told to dress and behave in a way that was socially acceptable to white people, but now she didnt flinch when she saw an black person acting differently. Now she was urging lesbians to act socially accpetable so straight people would accept them, because otherwise a &amp;quot;butch&amp;quot; stereotype would shut down the means of communication which I think she saw as the road to acceptance. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Betty Friedan, &amp;quot;The Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
In this reading I believe that the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name&amp;quot; is some kind of depression.  I say that because obviously these women are lacking something from their life.  They feel unfulfilled, somethings missing.  They want to be recongnized for something more than just being a house wife, mother and so on. I think too because of this expected role women are to play/be was so strong during that time that they felt they could do nothing about it, because they couldn&amp;#039;t even really put a name to what they felt. Having a job meant a lot to most of these women.  Betty Jeanne Bogg&amp;#039;s reading just proves that she is one of many who love there job very much.  She states that several times through out her reading.  She loved her children and in the end was glad she did stay home with them but in the beginning she was really torn because she &amp;quot;really enjoyed that job.&amp;quot; (210) Also in Vicki L. Ruiz&amp;#039;s article I thought it was interesting how she mentions that &amp;quot;wages gave women a feeling of independence.&amp;quot; (349) Even though her article is about mexican american women, I think that statement holds true for all women during that time.  Having that indepence of a job and earning their own money filled the missing thing, and was or could have been the fix I think to the &amp;quot;Problem That Has No Name.&amp;quot; --Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rickie Solinger, politics of abortion, 1950-1970 ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually felt a little dumb with this week&amp;#039;s readings.  There was a type of abortion that was mentioned in multiple articles, but the one I remember off the top of my head was &amp;quot;Women and the Politics of Hospital Abortion Committees, 1950-1970.&amp;quot;  They mentioned &amp;#039;therapeutic abortions&amp;#039; and either I missed where they they discussed what it is or it is one those things they figure the audience knows what they were talking about.  I have no idea what that kind of abortion is, I have never heard of it until this reading.  --Ashley Wilkins (feeling a little dumb right now) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Vicki Ruiz, &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Star Struck&amp;#039;: Acculturation, Adolescence, and Mexican American Women, 1920-1950&amp;quot; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-20T12:39:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Do you find these primary sources depressing or inspiring?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== All Eleanor Roosevelt readings ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All of this week&amp;#039;s readings about and created by Eleanor Roosevelt really confirmed history&amp;#039;s seemingly high opinion of her.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The fact that the Roosevelts&amp;#039; were able to constructively respond to all of their mail during the Great Depression is very admirable. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thougth it was interesting that women actually took the time to write Eleanor Roosevelt about things that they desperately needed, like clothing and jobs for their husbands.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Just thinking in today&amp;#039;s world and if a depression happened now, I would think it pointless to write the first lady about what I desperately needed, just because I would think she for one probably would never even read the letter and two she probably wouldn&amp;#039;t care much less help me&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Yet so many women in the 1930&amp;#039;s wrote her their depressing situations, I assume because they were just so desperate and no one else could help them so why couldn&amp;#039;t the first lady.  They probably thougtht too that Eleanor could influence her husband since he was the President to make him do something. Also article 5 and 6 in MP show that Eleanor did actually take recongnition of the problems during the depression and talked about the problems and spoke actively on many of the problems she saw.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting were the letters to the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s and specifically Eleanor in both MAW and MPA. Like Michelle had said I wouldn&amp;#039;t be writing to the first lady if there was a depression. Especially in today&amp;#039;s society the letter would just get lost or thrown away. One of the letters did bother me a bit. I know it really shouldn&amp;#039;t have but, the one about the little girl who wants roller blades.... to me its just so wrong. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I know she is younger and doesn&amp;#039;t understand what is going on, but it just really bugged me that she asked for roller blades when people are dieing of hunger, and are out of work and on the streets. Then there is this girl asking for roller blades because he friends are making fun of her. No matter what age you are things like that just bother me. Also wouldn&amp;#039;t the parents maybe explain to their child that mommy and daddy are having a few problems financially?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;(McClurken don&amp;#039;t make fun of  me to much in class, I like to be there when i am made fun of save a little for Tuesday).&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Amanda&amp;#039;s comment - each person, depending on their age, sex or race values different things - to a twelve year old girl, being ostricised in school because her family could not afford a pair of skates seemed just as traumatizing to her as the woman who could not afford clothes for her baby. I know the difference in the degree of severity  between these two requests may seem laughable to some, it just goes to show that the Depression was a reality for all.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;One common theme that I did notice amongst the various letters is the sense of pride Americans still had, despite their desperate conditions.  Here is a discussion question: Do you think Americans today still hold that same sense of pride and dignity?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For me the most interesting letter to Eleanor Roosevelt was the second one. The woman thanked Roosevelt for her reply to the last letter, but then said she did not need charity just a loan, even sending in collateral she claimed was valuable. However, what bothers me here is not the fact that the first lady could not possibly begin to make individual loans to people, but the size of this woman&amp;#039;s ego or pride. She claimed she gave up her rings which held the highest emotional value to her, this is not true. What holds the highest value in this woman&amp;#039;s life is clearly her ability to save face, her pride. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;If she was truly desperate, and in such great need that she would ask a loan from a stranger, she should be willing to give up her greatest asset; that of her ego, and take the charity that the government has set up for her. I have noticed the same trend more subtly throughout the rest of the readings, what is causing this? Is it a few isolated cases or does this pride fit in with the overall atttidue of the day, or somehow into the middle class ideals we have talked so extensively about?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that pride can be considered a weakness.  I could understand a child asking for something as trivial as skates, but the mother sending a shopping list to Eleanor Roosevelt was bothersome.  During a time of extreme financial hardship this women focussed on the clothing of an infant.  Then I thought that maybe this woman may not have been able to apply to the Welfare Association.  In my interview with a senior woman, she mentioned how her mother during the depression found a way to feed the family and save money.  She was suggesting aid from the government, which her husband refused.  There was a prevailing attitude at the time that if you were working you were not poor, and therefore did not need the government&amp;#039;s assistance. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Is the act of asking for a baby&amp;#039;s layette prompted by this mother&amp;#039;s vanity.  This woman had to have clothing from previous children, but she seemed intent on having a new set.  Is the ability to dress a child, even during the worst of times, a measure of her ability to be a good mother?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--LisaM &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the reading of &amp;quot;American Women ASk Eleanor for Help&amp;quot; Interesting as well as heartbreaking. It amazed me to read that within a day Eleanor would have 5 to 8 thousand letters and she made a huge effort to either answer them herself or pass it on to the correct agency. It surprised me the things the ladies asked for varying from roller skates to a job for a husband. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;How was Roosevelt able to answer all of these letters and was she able to satisfy the needs and wants of most?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Eleanor Roosevelt Urges Better Understanding and Cooperation of Both White and Negro Races,&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
In this reading, she is basically saying that in order to be respected, African Americans need to raise their standards of living.  She says that everyone needs to work together to stop injustices.--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could not believe that women would give up personal belongings to show Mrs. Roosevelt how much they needed help. One women sent Mrs. Roosevelt her rings in order to receive baby clothes. Did Mrs. Roosevelt actually reply back to some of these women&amp;#039;s letters? --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Roosevelts ever follow up with the girls that wrote them and give them the things they requested in their letters? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the letters written to the Roosevelts rather intriguing. They showed a wide range of people with a variety of problems. I will say that the 12 year old girl is rather oblivious to the times. I know she&amp;#039;s only 12, but really - at that age you should be picking up on what&amp;#039;s going on around you. What interested me the most was the fact that the authors of these letters obviously thought that Elanor could personally help them. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I know that the Roosevelts encouraged letter writing to themselves, but was there an perception throughout the country that the Roosevelts themselves could help  out individuals? Did people stop to think that if they were writing the Roosevelts for help, that other people might be to, and that no matter how wealthy or kind or caring they were, that it would be impossible for them to personally help everyone? Was there a vastly different relationship between the President and First Lady and the populace during this era, or was it just desperate times?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Sarah&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;I Want You Women Up North to Know&amp;quot; by Tillie Olson ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;I Want You Women Up North to Know&amp;quot; by Tillie Olson I found this line hilarious &amp;quot; ...she says that he prays and dreams of a another world...a heaven (which he does not know was brought to earth in 1917 in Russia, by workers like him)&amp;quot;...hind-sight is 20/20 right?- Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this reading interesting but at the same time confusing. Tillie Olson is clearly attacking the women in the north who are buying the clothes that are being made, but its these women that are allowing the women she is writing about to have their jobs. Yes, their conditions are horrible and the pay is horrible, but thats not a reason to attack the other women I would think. I would also think that the depression, while it might have lessened in the Northern cities, was still affecting their lives, so her accusations seem to me to be unjustified.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that Tillie Olson used a poem to express the conditions of the sweatships and garment workers. It is a very disturbing and graphic poem. A poem tends to be beautiful and lyrical but this really stands out because of how harsh it is in tone. It was really effective in creating the image of such a terrible life. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did the South have a harder time in the Great Depression because it was less industrialized?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Meridel Lesueur, &amp;quot;Despair of Unemployed Women&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Meridel Lesueur&amp;#039;s article really struck me.  Just how starved the women were, and the endless sitting at the job bureau day after day.  The description of some of their faces really made me feel a little sad.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found this reading interesting because it showed that the middle class ideals, or what i guess could be described as middle class prejudice or maybe just denial in this case, still affected women even in this time of crisis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Where as before when the economy was good, women were not afforded the same opportunities as men (i.e. lower wages, lower glass ceilings, smaller scope of job opportunities), now in the depression women still arent afforded the same rights and opportunities as men (i.e. no flop houses, a cultural unwillingness to see women living in the parks, and charities only helping the deserving few). -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just the fact that citizens had so much trust in the Roosevelt&amp;#039;s, particularly Eleanor, and that they actually did care about the American people, is very refreshing to think about in these jaded times.  Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This piece really struck me - the despair, the utter hopelessness of these women&amp;#039;s lives.  But despite everything, many retained their pride, mending their stockings, hiding away in condemned apartments, refusing charity and public displays of poverty.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  When the author mentioned the one woman who finally broke, it made me think, most of these single women endured starvation and extreme poverty but continued to sit in that office daily waiting for a job that would never come - how strong they were.  But somehow, many of these women made it through the Depression - somehow they survived, which really shows the strength of the human condition.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This piece was so incredible because I got a true sense of the despair of life during the Depression. The images were so vivid: living in condemned apartments, Mrs. Grey, sitting every day at the employment bureau. It emphasized how these women struggled to support their families in such a hopeless time. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Meridel LeSueur highlights that it was very hard for unemployed women in the Depression, and in her discussion she remarks that pretty girls get better jobs. I thought this was interesting, because in another one of my classes, we were talking about how this still happens today… and I think that is disgusting.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this piece incredibly interesting, and though the subject matter was depressing, it was very beautifully written. It really made me think about the extreme poverty that was the norm during this era. Her descriptions of the single woman who isolates herself and virtually disappears made me wonder how many women died of starvation during this period. I also found her statements at the end fascinating: &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s not the suffering of birth, death, love that the young reject, but the suffering of ... being a slave without the security of a slave&amp;quot; (p 149). Times were bad enough that the author was willing to imply that being a slave would have been better than being a free woman during the great depression. - Sarah H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Ann Marie Low&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Dust Bowl&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Ann Marie Low&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Dust Bowl&amp;quot; was intriguing to read.  Just how much dust piled up and how much they had to wash to keep their dishes, clothes, and house clean was unreal.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I had always been told that there was &amp;#039;a lot of dust,&amp;#039; but this article really put it in perspective.  How did the people manage to live in it?  I know that it said many babies and elderly died in it, but how did people live in it?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really like the piece titled Dust Bowl.Finding out the things these people had to go through. The excessive cleaning that occurs before anything, all the hours put into cleaning are such wasted hours. I never really thought of it like this, all this time spent on the cleaning could have been used for finding a job or getting more food. The one thing that did give me a little relief was that Ann Marie Low, the girl writing this had time for leisure, she was able to go out to the movies, that even through this she was able to maintain some social life. Even though sometimes housekeeping did get in the way she was able to do things for her self. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Ignoring the fact of the endless dust, life for this family seemed to be much better, as Amanda said the girl seemed to have time for leisure, and the ham, eggs, and bread seem like a feast compared to the rations of crackers described in the earlier readings of women in the cities. Was this true for the majority of rural families compared with those in the cities? Or is this a rare case?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As an afterthought, I still havent decided if I would rather starve or live in all that dust, both sound unpleasant.----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how did people survive the dust. Many people suffered but it seems there were ways to survive. Examples are eating weeds for salads, dandelions, lamb&amp;#039;s quarter,sheep sorrel, and other things as a food source. --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Margaret Jarman Hagood&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Margaret Jarman Hagood&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman&amp;quot; was so depressing!  I was reading it and toward the end I had to stop and just stare at the book.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I never realized that a baby that close to birth who was so active could just... die like that.  11 days before birth!  I read it allowed to my husband and our friend who was visiting and they both stared at me and asked &amp;quot;Why are you reading something so depressing!?!?&amp;quot;  Does those kinds of death still happen in America today?  I mean, that close to birth?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article bothered me a bit. Like Ashley I was shocked about the death of her baby so close to its birth but Margaret Hagood seemed to be extremely petty to me. She was annoyed because one of her children wasn&amp;#039;t as pretty as she hoped and she just seemed annoyed that she couldn&amp;#039;t have all the material things that she wanted. I just found her annoying because she seemed to not be upset because of the hardship of the depression but because she was worried that her daughter and that she, herself, wouldn&amp;#039;t be viewed as pretty.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Genora Johnson Dollinger, &amp;quot;Women and Labor Militancy&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Dollinger&amp;#039;s essay on &amp;quot;Women and Labor Militancy&amp;quot; was interesting.  I I had no idea some women took it so far and seriously in these union groups. Sure we&amp;#039;ve learned how they take a militant approuch, but the lady in this reading was beyond that.  What I thought was so interesting about her was how she used her gender against the cops in order to get where and what she wanted.  She knew as a women that the cops would not shoot her in the back like they would a man, and therefore marching herself right in there on these strikes helping to defend these men, as well as using a type of reverse psychology on the cops to try and get them to see their fight. Pretty smart.  On top of that she is like, oh by the way I had TB while I was doing all of this.  She had some guts. She had a lot of women back her up on these strikes and even though the cops did not shoot them like they may have done to men I wonder if any got arrested at least?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dollinger wrote about &amp;quot;Women and Labor Militancy&amp;quot; in the 1930&amp;#039;s. Women formed the Emergency Brigade as their form of activism, which at the time was very appreciated by the men it was helping. However, as women&amp;#039;s roles in these positions became less necessary and demands were being met, their roles became less necessary. People quickly reverted back to their previous expectations and as it states on page 170 men began saying, &amp;quot;Well, you women did a wonderful job, but now your duty is back there getting those kids in school, getting the wash done, and regular meals again…&amp;quot; Though the women were helpful for that time, does it really show progress for women and their increasingly public roles if it can disappear as quickly as it can emerge? I think it shows how easily the situation of women can change within certain societal conditions, how fragile progress can be, and how easily it is to revert back to the default. The challenge then becomes not how to be more active and make progress at a certain time or under certain circumstances, but how to use all of these collectively to change the default. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read the account of a woman raised in Flint Michigan and working with tue unions. Not only was I raised an hour or so south of Flint but both of my grandparents worked for the UAW during the depression. It&amp;#039;s interesting to read what these women went through because its not something my grandparents talk about often. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Carlotta Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression&amp;quot; Carlotta Martin discusses what is like growing up in the barrio and how difficult life was during the Great Depression. She mentions that it was more common for children to be raised by their grandparents. Would this be in the sense that was it common for grandparents to live in the same households as their children and other extended family and for them to serve as we would see babysitters today? Or did the grandparents take their grandchildren, live separately, and give both parents a chance to work. Was this common within other ethnic groups or social classes as well? Or did it simply serve as an opportunity for the children to get an education as opposed to working to help their struggling families during the depression? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Photo Essay ==&lt;br /&gt;
Personally, I loved the Photo essay.  I think that photographs are a really interesting way to show how things have changed from one era to the next and the pictures in this week&amp;#039;s reading did just that.  Seeing women in pants and with shorter hair on almost every girl was a neat thing to see because this had recently become a new fad.  The photos are also a great way to visualize what we were talking about in class on Tuesday, including women working in men&amp;#039;s jobs while they went off to war (like in the aviation plant photo) and joining and supporting unions (like in the auto workers&amp;#039; auxiliary photo).  It kind of proves that all of this stuff really did happen which is beneficial when it seems kind of unreal that women wearing pants had been such a major controversy. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Dorothy Dunbar Bromley on Birth Control in the Depression ==&lt;br /&gt;
It annoys me how it took an economic depression to make people realize how important birth control was. It would happen that way, people say how immoral it is until babies become an economic burden that they can&amp;#039;t afford. I am glad, however, that they DID realize it was important though because the more children, the harsher the despression would&amp;#039;ve been. It is sad to see that the poorer people always were the ones having the most children, that is unfortunately the way it usually is.- Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Emely Amaya&amp;#039;s comment on the studies regarding the high number of births among poor people during the Great Depression.  I was sort of wondering and hoping that studies such as those were the reason behind the repeal of prohibitions against the dissemination of information regarding birth control by AMA doctors. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Isnt it still true today that despite the wide availability and knowledge of birth control, the families that can not afford to have a child still are the ones who end up having the most children?--Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to ask the same question Landon does because wide availability and knowledge of birth control does not necessarily solve the problem.  I&amp;#039;m not suggesting that the Depression did not increase hardships or awareness for birth control.  I think that the problem is more complicated. Perhaps the reasons are embedded in culture, or it may have more to do with the subservient status of women to men.  In many cases the man dictates the use of birth control.  I&amp;#039;ve read articles that suggest that young women would rather risk pregnancy that lose a boyfriend.  Birth control only works if both partners are willing to use it.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When it takes a depression for people to finally realize that having lots of children is not a good idea it really only effects those that had the money to have children in the first place.  The ones that cant afford to are still going to  have them. The ones that limited children due to the depression were typically middle class families. It is sad, that it continues to be the families that cant afford children that are having such large numbers. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A very interesting read.  I&amp;#039;m almost surprised the &amp;quot;moral crusaders&amp;quot; of the time didn&amp;#039;t just encourage an &amp;quot;abstinence only&amp;quot; program.  History certainly does mimic itself.  Was it me, or was there a &amp;quot;blame the victim&amp;quot; thing going on in Bromley&amp;#039;s article underneath everything?  The Catholic Church is still pushing the &amp;quot;safe period&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;rythm method.&amp;quot;  My wife and I now call that program the &amp;quot;go forth and multiply&amp;quot; deal.  Been there, done that, DON&amp;#039;T WORK!  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the issue of birth control is still a very strong issue today. As others have pointed out the same groups of people are the ones that financially need it the most. But other than on college campuses I have never really heard of free contraception. Many forms of birth control, including most specifically designed for women to control the use of, are the most expensive and involve going to a doctor. Those who need birth control the most are usually not receiving adequate education and are often discouraged from any practice except abstinence.  The statistics in this essay were very powerful and I think the increase in media availabilty made these statistics extremely effective. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the community ethics that were apparent in this article interesting. Bromley emphasized the costs that community had to bear, but also emphasized that the community was taking care of 21,380 families already. At some points, Bromley sounds like a modern fiscal conservative, defending birth control as a method to reduce the size of the welfare state. At other points though it seems like Bromley is defending the role of an active community: this makes me curious about the author&amp;#039;s view on the role of the government (or community) and her contemporary’s views. -- Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Lydia Mendoza recalls her career in the Depression ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the Lydia Mendoza recollection.  Her modesty was overwhelming, but at the same time she was able to effectively describe how tough the depression was on families, and especially on minorities.  Having to play in the plaza for two nights in a row just to make up the rent for the week had to have been difficult and you can really understand why her mother was hesitant about letting her travel to go on the radio show.  If I were her mother I probably would have done the same thing -- her daughter was earning her quite a bit in the plaza so why change that, right?  At the same time, I think it was wonderful that the manager found her a sponsor - it&amp;#039;s kind of romanticized really and the way a great success story should start.  I also liked how, by reading Lydia&amp;#039;s piece, you could tell that women were still trying to establish themselves alongside men in the music world (and life in general.)  &amp;quot;It was a very pretty sight and very special because we were women and very young...&amp;quot;  Her discussion of the plaza being filled entirely with groups of men playing their instruments just emphasizes how all cultures dealt with a gender struggle. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It makes be sad to read how greatly people struggled because of the Great Depression. I, like Kelly, enjoyed reading about Lydia Mendoza. I was moved by the since of &amp;quot;togetherness&amp;quot; her family had. Everyone in the family was involved in the musical group, all working together for survival. I suppose that tragedy and tough times bring people together. The move from Michigan to Texas took 3 months because they had to stop and perform for food and gas. Lydia Mendoza was modest and very sweet with her words. I found it interesting that Lydia&amp;#039;s father gave up. He would not get up and to try to get work even when seeing Ignacio coming home with produce to eat. He was proving a point, but his family was starving.--Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My first thought after reading this piece was the that the family&amp;#039;s togetherness was very limited. This particular family seemed to reverse the public/private distinction: the women (primarily, but also the young) went out and earned the rent while the father refused to work. I was also interested by the brief section on the impact of repealing the prohibition. Lydia&amp;#039;s explanation of how it bolstered musicians makes me wonder how it impacted other groups. -- Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== P’ing Yu, Racism among white CA Clubwomen, 1937 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An interesting point with this reading.  It dutiful for club women to work for rights of African American women but not with them.  The Clubwomen still wanted to choose their friends and the members of the clubs.-Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Louise Mitchell, Denounces the “Slave Markets” where Domestics are Hired in NYC, 1940 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is so sad that so many young women had to stand on the street corners just to try to get work.  I was surprised that domestic workers made up most of the country&amp;#039;s job force, especially when it was a last resort job for women.   Reading the piece about the domestic &amp;quot;slave markets&amp;quot; really showed how hard it was for women, especially African-American women, to get jobs. --Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Not to diminish anyone&amp;#039;s experience from the Great Depression, but trust me Kellye, everyone was dirt poor.  The generation that just died off in my family spoke of the depression often.  The women from this era used to embarrass me in public places by collecting all extra foodstuffs, fruits, etc. from open buffets and bars, or after famlily Holy Communion and birthday parties held in a public place.  My Grandmother and Great Aunts COULDN&amp;#039;T STAND TO SEE ANYTHING WASTED.  They remembered growing up with empty stomachs and no work for the parents and the children. - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Annelise Orleck, &amp;quot;Militant Housewives of the Depression&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed to learn how organized and militant housewives were during the Great Depression.  Prior to reading this week&amp;#039;s reading, I didn&amp;#039;t know people were able to actually find constructive ways of regaining a semblance of their previous way of life during the Great Depression. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVED this reading! I enjoyed seeing how women reacted to some of the hardships of the depression in a more aggressive way. I found it interesting that Orleck mentions that the women who were speaking out weren&amp;#039;t doing so because they wanted the attention but because they wanted to be able to fulfill their duties as wives and mothers, which fits into the idea of what a woman was supposed to be doing, making their efforts more acceptable in society. I had no idea that they were able to accomplish so much or that the movement of housewives was so widespread across the U.S.! These I think are definitely ones who, if I was a mother during this period, I would want my children to respect and look up to because they were fighting for something they believed so strongly in (even though I&amp;#039;d prefer to be something more than a housewife). -Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This really was a fun article to read.  I was very impressed at how these women managed to keep their life somewhat the same during the depression. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too thought this article was very interesting and empowering. The different tactics these housewives used to ban together and create change brought many interesting images to mind. I really like how Moser points out that these movements were &amp;quot; &amp;#039;an education for women&amp;#039;&amp;quot;. However it is quite upsetting that it took these circumstances for this education to occur and for Americans to make the connection of the value between producing and consuming. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I wonder did these movements outlast the images and ideals brought to mind by the 1950&amp;#039;s?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found all the Modern American Women reading really moving. It is hard to learn about a time where so many people had so liitle and were struggling to just survive everyday. When reading the first hand accounts it made it that much worse. I the description of those poor women who sit at the employment agency hoping for some odd job was very vivid. - Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reading I found the most interesting was the letter from the 12 year old girl to Eleanor Roosevelt asking for a pair of skates because her friends at school werelaughing at her. This article made me a little mad. Here was a country with hundreds of women and children starving and all that little girl could think about was a pair of skates. Where were her parents telling her to be thankful for what she did have and telling her she should think abut all those who were less fortunate and maybe even do something to help them. - Christine Wuebker&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 8 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_8_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-03-13T01:56:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;THE ONLINE READING IS LOCATED HERE: [http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/docs/MP-Reading.pdf Week 8 Reading]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this week&amp;#039;s reading of &amp;quot;&amp;#039;But We Would Never Talk about it&amp;#039;: The Structures of Lesbian Discretion in South Dakota, 1928-1933&amp;quot; by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, the idea that struck me the deepest was the thought that the now extinct sensibility that existed during the first half of the twentieth century actually helped a minority people.  Having unofficial social mores and a respect for others&amp;#039; privacy allowed for lesbians who were white to live productive lives as long as they lived according to same social standards that ruled the lives of heterosexual women.  This custom appears to have created a type of equality that may or may not exist today.  Given the fact that the majority of the things that many homosexual couples are fighting for today did not yet exist for heterosexual couples, it would seem as if during this point in time, lesbianism was treated as an extreme eccentricity that should be controlled out of respect for one&amp;#039;s neighbors. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did not find it as surprising that is was so possible for Julia Boyer Reinstein&amp;#039;s family to accept her lesbianism.  While I am sure that her mother and father would have preferred to have a son-in-law, that the father enjoyed not having to entertain potential male suitors and having someone who would cover up his extramaterial affairs should not be overlooked.  In a certain sense, I think what made her lesbianism easier to accept than if Julia Boyer Reinstein had been a homosexual male was that the society in which she lived was patriarchal and thus the desires of the father won out over the desires of the mother, and her father really did not care whether she enjoyed a heterosexual marriage or not. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So then does the tying of sexuality with politics and identity mischaracterize people and their politics, concerns, and histories? --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;But we would never talk about it&amp;quot; I didn&amp;#039;t feel surprised about any of it. Being a lesbian back then was not defined as it was today. It was common for women to confide in each other and sleep in the same bed and have an intimate relationship. However, a lot of people did not know what was really going on behind closed doors, which I feel is a reason why no one every talked about it. The only thing that did surprise me was that her parents were ok with it all. There is a passage that talks about how her mother would make a comment about how she wasn&amp;#039;t with this one boy, but in the end her being a lesbian didn&amp;#039;t bother her, she was actually very polite to Dorothy. In Julia&amp;#039;s father&amp;#039;s case, it didn&amp;#039;t surprise me so much after there were comments made that he could have all of her attention. He didn&amp;#039;t need to entertain possible son - in- laws, however I also feel like he used Julia because she was gay. By giving Julia his consent and accepting her it keep their relationship close, however he might of done this because it covered up all of his affairs. My question was did Julia ever see her father and her relationship this way, or was she just happy that her father accepted her? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The second part that I thought was the most interesting was her encounter with Amelia Earhart. It shows how cautious girls were towards other girls. I feel that these women were so unsure about themselves that they really had to question others more. Especially since this was one of her earlier encounters, it shows that in the beginning Julia was very timid about her sexuality. Since she was shy about her self, she wasn&amp;#039;t going to go out and put the moves on every girl, especially not Earhart. But as she gets older her &amp;quot;sense&amp;quot; gets stronger, through all the trips she took with her father. She could tell which woman was the &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; one of the bunch, I also feel that over the years other women started to feel a little more comfortable with being gay and showing it a little more. Which made it easier for women like Julia to point out the &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; girl. My only question was were there women like today who went through these phases of lesbians and then just turned straight and marry? Or was it because society was starting to see lesbians for what they were and women felt pressured to become straight live the way society wants them to? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kennedy uses the case of Julia to discuss the discretion of lesbianism in the early 1900’s. There were, however, many other aspects to Julia’s identity than just her sexuality. This is pointed on page 415, when Kennedy states “she came into her womanhood as a lesbian, as a college student, as the daughter of a father who was prominent citizen and business owner, and as the daughter of a mother who was strongly independent yet part of an established small-town protestant family.” Given this, the discretion of Julia’s sexuality may have been because it would have been a trait that overshadowed the others; it may have become her only identifying factor in the public eye as opposed to just one of many. Could there have been any other traits during this time that people felt the need to cover-up, other than sexuality? And how true is this still today? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lesbianism wasn’t something that could be discriminated against publicly; this is in contrast to other aspects of one’s identity such as gender or race, which could once have been discriminated against legally. Yet Julia still feared that if she was obvious about how she felt then she would not be able to receive all the benefits and privileges of her class. Which would be harder to deal with, discrimination by law or discrimination by society? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would be afraid that anything that was considered not &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; would be discriminated against.  Just because it wasn&amp;#039;t something typically a reason to discriminate against someone doesn&amp;#039;t mean that people wont. Most people don&amp;#039;t like what they don&amp;#039;t understand. --Kellye Sorber &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All I have to say is, wow.  I know there are still a lot of problems with accepting lesbianism today, but to read that a father accepted it and used it to his advantage was incredibly.  I feel that even lesbianism today is kept quite because most people seem not to always accept it, however not as much as the 1920s and 1930s.  There are gay rights movements and things like ‘gay day’ at theme or amusement parks, which to me shouts “we accept all people of sexual preferences.”  That could also just be a money marketing scam…  However, I really did enjoy this piece by Elizabeth Kennedy because going through the public school system I had friends that I knew were lesbians, but we never talked about it, not even when they would have a break up with their girlfriend.  If there was a break-up we would take the friend for ice-cream or something, but nothing was ever said about the situation.  –Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I pity the most definitely unsatisfied woman married to that Dr. Carlton C. Frederick! His unqualified theories on woman were as sexist as Freud&amp;#039;s of that same time period (the grotesque double standard was very popular then)! This article compared to the survey&amp;#039;s of Dr. Mosher were so starkly different, I wonder what kind of effect the controversy had over the general population-and more importantly over the general female population? His assertive views on Nymphomaniacs has actually made me question the sexism based around that &amp;quot;disorder&amp;quot;-I would be interested in further study of the history of Nymphomania as recognized by physicians and society. Also in consideration of mental disorders: this article is part of the great slew of material that prolonged the accepted myth that homosexuality is a mental illness well into the early 70s in American.  I don&amp;#039;t know how doctors could do it back then- to use unsubstantiated views as evidence for such sexist publications! ~~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jackie that Dr. Frederick was a wack job!  Where on earth did he get his information from.  It really makes you wonder how many doctors in those days actually did any kind of research or if they were simply stuck on a certain view of women and because they were a doctor they felt that gave them authority and validation to what their theory on the female and sex was.--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jackie about the Dr. Frederick essay. My question is: Was Frederick saying that nymphomania in women, was when they acheived the same level of sexuality and deisre that men had? Or was it on some completely different level? Also I found it disturbing, and almost funny how he so easily bridged a gap between masturbation and pedophelia.----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were several parts of the reading off the wiki that fit in perfectly with the companionate marriage we discussed in class today. Most noticeably the second passage from extracts from the Mosher Survey, respondent 10 was qouted as &amp;quot;I think for man and woman married from love, it may be used temperately, as one of the highest manifestations of love.&amp;quot; This passage exemplifies the break from the repressive victorian era ideals of marriage, that women should not enjoy sex, and that it should be used primarily for reproduction. Another example was the second letter to Sanger, the man was asking for details of contraception, not for (entirely) selfish reasons, he seemed genuinely concerned about his wife&amp;#039;s welfare and happiness. ----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the online reading something that stuck out to me the most was the letters to Margaret Sanger. I found it surprising that men and women were actually staying away from their spouses because they don&amp;#039;t want anymore children. Because birth control was not offered to women, and especially women who lived in rural areas, it was ruining marriages. In letter number 4 the wife was actually thinking about their financial stability knowing they can not have another child and all the husband wants is sex not really caring about the situation. This whole concept of the companion family caused higher expectations, however in these letters the women and or men mention that they love their spouse dearly but because they don&amp;#039;t want to reproduce tears them apart. If there was such a big problem with divorce rates increasing and infidelity then why wasn&amp;#039;t this taken into account? Is it because people are just to afraid to talk about sex? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading the letters to Margaret Sanger about birth control I kind of asked the same question Amanda did on why wasn&amp;#039;t it taken into account that divorce rates incresasing was really possibly due to infidelity which was essentially caused by fear of having sex in result of having children.  Therefore birth control would really possibly save marriage, however I don&amp;#039;t think it is because people were afraid to talk about sex even though it wasn&amp;#039;t talked about but, instead maybe what they really wanted was to be able to have sex freely without the worry of getting pregnant, and birth control would allow a married couple to have control over how many children they wanted. Maybe they thought, this thought was a scary or selfish thing to even think or want becasue for so long people just had children, but because the world was changing there was just no need for families with 7 to 10 children anymore.--Michelle M. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Landon and also saw many parallels between the discussion of the companionate family in class and also in society today. Blanchard and Manasses&amp;#039; discussion of courtship points out that men and women were able to &amp;quot;become intimately acquainted&amp;quot; before marriage and discuss openly and equally about their opinions of married life before they were married. The notion that men and women must be compatible personalities, working together as partners in all areas demonstrates the new ideal. Yet there are still hidden facets of Victorian ideals engrained into the companionate marriage. The &amp;quot;lurking fear that she may seem too passionate, and her husband may suspect what still seems to her dreadful secret, she cannot give herself up to free enjoyment of his love,&amp;quot; still alludes to the idea that women are not supposed to enjoy sex and when they do there is something morally wrong with them. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also saw a parallel between Blanchard and Manasses&amp;#039; discussion and society&amp;#039;s ideals today. Sex education, and the lack thereof, is still a problem. Many schools still strictly follow an abstinence only program and students are left uneducated about where to go for family planning options. In many cases women still grow up experiencing &amp;quot;conditioned responses toward sex&amp;quot; in which parents have punished any form of sexual expression. The experiences of women described in this reading (anxiety, embarressment, guilt) caused by society&amp;#039;s ideals still strongly exist. Their discussion was a liberal view and today this view would be considered conservative but how much have the ideals of women&amp;#039;s sexuality changed from the early 20th century? -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised after reading the &amp;quot;Extracts from the Mosher Survey, 1892-1913&amp;quot; because I did not realize that it seemed that most women did not have knowledge of sexual physiology before marriage.  I&amp;#039;m guessing most of the men knew though.  I think the &amp;#039;birds and the bees&amp;#039; was mostly explained by my teachers when I was in 4th or 5th grade, or around age 9 or 10.  Times have changed considerably, but I wonder how many U.S. females are raised in such a way still that they do not know much about it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, as everyone knows, I hate the idea of using Lysol as a means of contraception.  As a result, reading the one interview with Respondent 44 made me cringe.  Bichloride? Really? I&amp;#039;m assuming they used the mercury compound since I saw another interviewee discuss it and I almost fell over.  That stuff is dangerous so it astounded me that it had &amp;quot;no effect&amp;quot; as she stated.  It never ceases to amaze me the lengths to which people would go to prevent pregnancies in the early 20th century.  It was interesting to read all of the interviews though and compare and contrast them.  The differences were slight because the years were relatively close together, but the shifts in belief about the purposes of intercourse emphasized that shift from a &amp;quot;sex is for male pleasure and reproduction only&amp;quot; world to a &amp;quot;women can like it too&amp;quot; sort of atmosphere.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly, it is crazy what women will do to prevent pregnancy.  How could you put yourself in danger just so you dont have children.  I know that childbirth was considered not always safe but really, why would you do something even worse to yourself?  I too was impressed by the change in the interviews, things have to progress. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the respondents from Mosher I was surprised to find out how many women really knew nothing about sex once they were married.  I knew that it was somthing not talked about, but to be a women just married and not knowing what sex even was had to be scary and maybe even confusing to them.  Did the husbands know though?  What I also thought was interesting about their resoponses was that those who did try some kind of means to prevent pregnancy, when asked if their health was effected they all said no.  The things they used didn&amp;#039;t sound like very safe things, but what I&amp;#039;ve come to realize by these readings this week is that women seemed to be desperate for anything to have some kind of control over conception, but were the men just as desperate in hopes that something would emerge to prevent pregnancy once there were so many children already in the family too?--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I flat out laughed when I read the beginning of &amp;quot;The Manifestations of Nymphomania.&amp;quot;  What I thought was so interesting about this reading, besides the ideology that if women liked sex as much as men the world would be one giant brothel, was that this was documented at the turn of the century.  I think it&amp;#039;s a good example of the mentality some conservatives were trying to hold on to as the &amp;quot;new woman&amp;quot; burst onto the scene.  I just didn&amp;#039;t really understand his distinction between &amp;quot;insane&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;not insane.&amp;quot;  Were the insane and mildly insane nymphomaniacs the ones that went into bars and started flirting with men, etc? -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The letters to Margaret Sanger about the need for birth control were extremely interesting. I thought it was strange how women assumed they would just magically know how to not have children once they were married. Also, I wondered if married couples not having sex so as to not have any more children led to affairs outside the marriage. Clearly, there was no birth control for any type of sexual relationship but I get the feeling that these people writing in thought that extramarital affairs couldn’t result in children. What did prostitutes do for birth control? – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Malcom Bissell’s essay on birth control discusses how small group meetings in people’s home might be the most effect way of disseminating birth control information. I think this is very telling of society’s views at the time. Clearly, birth control was wanted and necessary, but there was such a social stigma and controversy over using it that people didn’t want to be publicly seen as seeking out information. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion of “modern marriage” was really interesting to me. I find it horrifying that ideals of companionship didn’t exist before this time. Even in this essay, there is a part where Phyllis Blanchard and Carolyn Manassas question what a companion marriage may mean for the future once sexual desire fades. I just found it interesting that eve they are not true believers in companionship. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading &amp;quot;But We Would Never Talk About It.&amp;quot; However, I was not at all surprised about the fact that these women did not talk about their sexual preferences and experiences with other women or their parents, mostly because I still have the impression that while during this time period it was becoming more acceptable for sex to be discusses it still wasn&amp;#039;t really done. And since sex in general wasn&amp;#039;t talked about, why would a varying preference be talked about? Also while I found it amazing that her mother and father supported her and were ok with her sexual choice, I was also disgusted by the fact the father would use that to his advantage so he could continue his extramarital affairs! I do have to wonder, was she really ok with covering for her dad in these instances, or did she have any resentment towards him for using her in this way and if her nonchalant attitude towards it was because it was simply how she dealt with those feelings?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the readings from the Wiki very interesting! I was slightly shocked at some of the details in the &amp;quot;Extracts from the Mosher survey: 1892-1913&amp;quot;. Mostly I was surprised at how long some of these couples waited before they had sex after marrying! There was one woman who said that their first time having sex was 5 months after they were married! I found this surprising because most married couples are simply expected to do that on their wedding night. And like Kelly I was shocked at the items they used to attempt to control pregnancies and then claimed that they had no physical affect on them when it should have.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Carlton C. Fredericks article amusing at the same time it was irritating. It was amusing to me because of the way he approached the subject yet irritating because of its sexism. He seemed to imply that only insane or mildly insane women would likely turn to Nymphomania. I also find it interesting that he said women turned to other women to achieve satisfaction, wouldn&amp;#039;t it then follow the logical path of his thought that to rectify this husbands should focus on more than just their sexual pleasure?(I&amp;#039;m not saying I agree with his thought process). Also, is he saying that men can&amp;#039;t have nymphomania and that its an aliment strictly suffered by women?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Unequal Sisters, I found the quote &amp;quot;You don&amp;#039;t know if someone is a lesbian unless you&amp;#039;ve slept with her&amp;quot; to be interesting. I&amp;#039;m not surprised that women who were lesbians didn&amp;#039;t discuss their sexuality openly but why was it started that way? Besides religious aspects, where did the term lesbian or gay gain its percieved connotation? I feel like it was only more recently that males and females who were gay felt safe in taking pride of their sexuality. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was creepy reading Julia&amp;#039;s story and how her father thought of her daughter as the &amp;quot;apple of his eye&amp;quot;. It was weird to me that he subconsciously made a deal with her not to exploit her lesiban affairs as long as she kept quiet about his extramarital activities. Was this just one account or a more &amp;quot;normal&amp;quot; occurence at the time? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought all the reading for this week were very interesting. I really like the &amp;quot;But We Never Talk about It&amp;quot; article by Elizabeth Kennedy. I thought the story about Julia meeting Amelia Earhart was facinating. It is the first story we have about a famous woman who was a lesbain and managed to not let that knowledge affect her life or hinder her attempts at greatness. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought the article &amp;quot;Breaking the Silence&amp;quot; by Yolanda Leyva was interesting. It was surprising to me that the Catholic Church was one place where the lesbian women could be themselves. I would have though that the church would have severely disapproved of such behavior. Did they just not know that by segregating the women they were encouraging this behavior or were the women just using the circumstances to their advantage? - Christine Wuebker&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-25T00:19:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;quot;Anxious Mothers write the Children’s Bureau&amp;quot; deals with the health problems related to women and infants. People concerned wrote to the Children’s Bureau of the Department of Labor, which was formed until 1912. Before this, and even after this, was there anything for people to turn to on more of a local level? In addition, the first letter points out that the doctor was not available while the woman was giving birth, and the last letter points out the deficiencies in the profession. Was it more common or more reliable to see a midwife during this time? &lt;br /&gt;
--Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting to look at the women’s movement and how it evolved in different generations. Bromely begins by looking at the term “feminism” and how some people thought that this meant a young woman who had a job and who is no longer “old fashioned.” She looks at generational gaps between women in their twenties and women in their forties. If you were to make this breakdown today, how would women’s opinions on feminism differ? –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With women having the ability to vote, I think it would have been interesting to track votes by gender and if a wife&amp;#039;s vote was the same or opposite as her husband. Did females double the number of votes or was their a clear difference between what women found as important issues vs. the men? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about the KKK. I had no idea in 1925 there were between 3 and 4 million American members involved. Also to read there were 500,000 women in a a &amp;quot;Women of the KKK&amp;quot; scares me. What drew all these individuals into this organization? Why so many women in 1925 and fewer in the later years? -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Rose I found the article &amp;quot;Women of the Ku Klux Klan&amp;quot; interesting. While I was not that surprised on how many women were involved in it, especially seeing how much dislike the Southern states had towards blacks, and I remembered learning that Jews were becoming to be targets of the KKK I didn&amp;#039;t remember that the Catholics were also targets. Although I didn&amp;#039;t remember this, seeing how the majority, if not all of the members, were white protestants it does kind of make sense. Though what I found most interesting was the fact that section 2 of the Constitution of and laws of the WKKK stated that the group would be military in character, and I would have thought these women would want to avoid that categorization since it was not very lady-like.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The  Feminists--New Style of &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley seemed to be considerably naive.  Was it really possible for a women to have a successful career during the 1920&amp;#039;s and 1930&amp;#039;s that could provide economic freedom?  Was it as easy as these new feminists presented it to be?---Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;New Voters&amp;quot; by Carrie Chapman Catt, I found it notable that Catt thought of political change as only possible through political parties.  This view differs from, what I guess is a more idealistic, view that the parties can be affected by grass roots movements.  I guess her view of politics must have been shaped by her experiences fighting for women&amp;#039;s suffrage. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the debate about an Equal Rights Amendment to be fairly interesting.  Of the two debates, I, with my modern understanding of things, believe that the argument in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment was a way to achieve gender equality.  Having to wait for equality and legislate for women separately seems to play into gender stereotypes instead of defusing them which should ultimately be the purpose of whatever course of action that should be undertaken. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found &amp;quot;Generational Conflicts&amp;quot; extremely interesting because it seemed like many of the reasons that the women of the 1920s didn&amp;#039;t want to be associated with the term &amp;#039;feminist&amp;#039; are the same reasons that many people today don&amp;#039;t want to be. These reasons include the desire to not be seen as man haters, the idea that they wouldn&amp;#039;t live for only her husband or her job but rather would balance the two arenas, and had a desire to still wear feminine clothes which the older generation who called themselves feminists did not want to do.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the debate very interesting as well as a challenging topic to side one way on. In a perfect world I would side with Stevens and the National Women&amp;#039;s Party in terms of equality for both sexes. Although at that point in history it is easy to see how many women wouldn&amp;#039;t want to be held to those standards in the work place. I think that Hamilton&amp;#039;s arguement was best made when she looked to Holland. Instead of &amp;quot;taking privilege away from the women&amp;quot; (126) the privileges were given to the men. The debate brings up a very important point: where is the line that separates women and men and how do you draw that line while maintaining equality? -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nella Larsen&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Passing&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was very upsetting to read about Clare&amp;#039;s double life. It&amp;#039;s hard to imagine growing up in a society that valued &amp;quot;pure blood&amp;quot; so strongly that you would deny your ancestry in order to be a part of a soceity that would shun you if they knew the truth. I thought it was an interesting situation to think &amp;quot;if I was in Irene&amp;#039;s shoes in the 1920&amp;#039;s, what would I do?&amp;quot; -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;quot;If you really want women&amp;#039;s vote to count, make your way there.&amp;quot;(p.122) This inspiring phrase from Carrie Chapman Catt&amp;#039;s speech was the crux of the newly ratified 19th amendment. Now that women had the vote, how were they going to use it? She tells them to go out and get involved. It reminds me of all the campaigns to get out the vote that we have today. Catt understands that just having the power to vote is not enough; the real power lies in how it&amp;#039;s used. I also found it interesting that she wants them to get involved in political parties in order to make the most impact. It almost seems like going backwards becaue now they&amp;#039;re back to working within the male controlled sphere. It goes back to contradicting the narrow-minded male perception that women would all vote the same on issues. -Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was passing a common practice? It seems that passing would not only be infeasible but also extremely uncomfortable. I cannot imagine the pressure and strain of trying to live your life while having to lie to everyone around you and deserting your family. Do these sacrifices speak to the huge difference in standards of living between white and black Americans in this time period? Were conditions so bad for the black/mixed race people that they were willing to make this huge sacrifice and pretend to be someone else? Or was this just a few opportunistic greedy girls trying to get ahead one way or another? Also did any men successfully try and do this? -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the first time in this class I saw a glimpse of what I would consider the modern woman. In Dorothy Bromley&amp;#039;s writing she describes the 3rd generation feminists and how they didn&amp;#039;t hate men, how they were concerned with being fashionable, and how they were more concerend with economic independence than with reform. Before this reading all the women we have studied or read about either seemed to submissive to resemble any females I  consider to be contemporary, or they were far more radical and militant than the average woman in America today. -----Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed the readings for this week. I thought it was interesting to read all the letters from the mothers to the Children&amp;#039;s Bureau. The horror that one mother went throught just because she had a doctor who was not fully qualified and her desire for some sort of governmental check on all doctors to prevent such a terrible experience from happening again. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other article I really like was &amp;quot;Feminist-New Style&amp;quot; by Dorothy Dunbar Bromley. It is the first time we see the formation of a modern woman. I also thought her decription of the different generations of women was interesting. I was surpised she didn&amp;#039;t talk about flappers. Today they are the most recognised women of the 1920s. I would have thought she would have at least mentioned them in her article. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-21T13:24:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found Jane Addams&amp;#039;s view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting.  Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today&amp;#039;s political climate. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman&amp;#039;s rights at the time. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Leonara O&amp;#039;Reilly&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage&amp;quot; to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women&amp;#039;s suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women&amp;#039;s suffrage was in the Congressmen&amp;#039;s best interests. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women&amp;#039;s work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for  women&amp;#039;s work rights. ~Jackie R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party.  My guess is they saw the party as being &amp;#039;progressive&amp;#039; and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage.  I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another.  The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible.  Did this happen at most prisons?  Does it still happen?  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the&amp;quot;Partisan Women in the Progressive Era&amp;quot; by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn&amp;#039;t know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women&amp;#039;s auxiliaries could have been seen as women&amp;#039;s lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women&amp;#039;s involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women&amp;#039;s auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the  Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman&amp;#039;s Party, 1921&amp;quot; it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women&amp;#039;s suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn&amp;#039;t pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, &amp;quot;A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters&amp;quot; by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don&amp;#039;t understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot; as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in &amp;quot;Front Door Lobbying&amp;#039; for Suffrage&amp;#039; by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Marie Jenny Howe&amp;#039;s An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated &amp;quot;women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats.&amp;quot; The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women&amp;#039;s organizations? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure if I agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s sentiment of &amp;quot;funny&amp;quot; when referring to Howe&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.&amp;quot;  In one passage she states, &amp;quot;Enfranchisement is what makes man man.  Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman.  If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man.  There would be no difference between them.  and don&amp;#039;t you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?&amp;quot;  What romance novel was this lady reading!  She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, &amp;quot;Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!&amp;quot;  Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women?  It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda&amp;#039;s post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing.  I think the &amp;quot;Antis&amp;quot; were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. &amp;quot;She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half...&amp;quot; What I don&amp;#039;t understand is how men of this time period don&amp;#039;t understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn&amp;#039;t be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn&amp;#039;t get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn&amp;#039;t do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be &amp;quot;blasphemy.&amp;quot; Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don&amp;#039;t realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women&amp;#039;s decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda.  You&amp;#039;re right when you say that women influenced their husbands&amp;#039; political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda.  In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves.  I don&amp;#039;t think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did.  But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment &amp;quot;A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government...&amp;quot; But I think the fact that men didn&amp;#039;t really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their &amp;quot;domestic sphere&amp;quot; and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women&amp;#039;s place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn&amp;#039;t that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway&amp;#039;s qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period.  It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do.  However in today&amp;#039;s world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever.  Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly.  These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives.  They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did.  Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for.  Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town.  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren&amp;#039;t naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don&amp;#039;t understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Florence Luscomb&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic,&amp;quot; I couldn&amp;#039;t help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard.  The numbers she gave at the end, &amp;quot;We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures&amp;quot; is absolutely incredible.  When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts.  I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic.  If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity.  Oh, and my apologies for using the word &amp;quot;suffragette.&amp;quot;  Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kelly I found &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic,&amp;quot; of great interest.  Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women&amp;#039;s population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Maud Wood Park&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Front Door Lobbying&amp;#039; For Suffrage.&amp;quot;  I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause.  My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said &amp;quot;He said, &amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m with you; I&amp;#039;m for it, I&amp;#039;m going to vote for it.  Now don&amp;#039;t bother me,&amp;#039; all in one breath.&amp;quot;  There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I&amp;#039;m sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly.  The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society.  Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps.  They couldn&amp;#039;t just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marie Howe&amp;#039;s essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before.  Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable.  She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, &amp;quot;women cannot understand politics.&amp;quot; Well, why can&amp;#039;t they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren&amp;#039;t facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife.  Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws &amp;amp; hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won&amp;#039;t corrupt the women and that women won&amp;#039;t neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement.  – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway&amp;#039;s speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in &amp;quot;a spirit of warfare between the sexes&amp;quot; but in the &amp;quot;spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women&amp;quot; (96).  I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist&amp;#039;s have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;.  I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family.  Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also a little confused at first when I read &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue,&amp;quot; but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the &amp;quot;antis.&amp;quot; She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read about &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings&amp;quot; by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful &amp;quot;summer of campaigning&amp;quot; I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can&amp;#039;t imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the the &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot; by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote &amp;quot;If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men&amp;quot; Really?? Did someone actually write that? &amp;quot;What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge.&amp;quot; Again, really!? I&amp;#039;m not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought &amp;quot;Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail&amp;quot; was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul&amp;#039;s actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women&amp;#039;s rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway&amp;#039;s speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought &amp;quot;Open Air Suffrage&amp;quot; was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren&amp;#039;t all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how women are said to have &amp;quot;feminized&amp;quot; politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth asks about &amp;quot;Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the  Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman&amp;#039;s Party, 1921&amp;quot; whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women&amp;#039;s delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to &amp;quot;militant&amp;quot; tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked myself the same question Ashley asked above about why African American men joined the progressive party even though they didn&amp;#039;t believe in giving them a vote. I think that it&amp;#039;s because they figured that out of all the other groups the Progressive party would grant them a vote faster than any of the other choices out there. Or there was probably less animosity towards them than other groups maybe. - Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Inez Haynes Irwin article really interesting. I was surprised to see how quickly the President agreed to meet with a delegation of women after he heard they were going to strike.  Like Elizabeth I have to ask why? What was the President afraid would happen if he didn&amp;#039;t meet with the women. -- Christine w.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As alway I really enjoyed reading the &amp;quot;Modern American Women&amp;quot; articles. I like the wide variety of selections. It helps to bring the topic together as a whole. I always found studing history to be easier if there were first hand accounts to read because it makes it seem so much more believable. You know someone actually lived through the events and had some effect on them. -- Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-21T13:21:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I found Jane Addams&amp;#039;s view that women needed to be involved in the political parties since organizations for public good founded by a charismatic individual usually died after their departure to be interesting.  Her belief that political parties produced more long lasting and stable change through their unification of the states and the nation was what interested me about her view, especially given today&amp;#039;s political climate. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that there existed Negro women who belonged to the Democratic party since it was the party that had recently worked for their enslavement and did not really support woman&amp;#039;s rights at the time. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Leonara O&amp;#039;Reilly&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;A Labor Organizer Speaks Out for Suffrage&amp;quot; to be a very good argument, but I failed to see how it was different from all of the other arguments that Congress probably had already heard that talked about how women&amp;#039;s suffrage was the right thing to do and failed to speak about how women&amp;#039;s suffrage was in the Congressmen&amp;#039;s best interests. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the personal writings by the various working women. All were so informative and individual tone helped to understand the kind of labor, their general treatment, and their personal feelings about the job: gratitude, vulnerability. All these jobs were considered women&amp;#039;s work and all were poorly (payed even compared to cheap male labor), demeaning in some way, and offered either high health hazards or demanded long hours. I found Agnes Nestor particularly inspiring, that she worked from unskilled glove maker to union leader (being part of that small 2.2%) and lobbyist for  women&amp;#039;s work rights. ~Jackie R.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speech delivered by Abigail Scott Duniway (printed in Modern American Women), I thought was very interesting. She brings up a very good question, if women were sincere in their belief that men considered women’s opinions and kept their promises to women, then why would men not also feel safe in allowing women the right to vote? Her speech continues, to discuss how men and women were created equally as halves and without the consideration of both, there can never be a whole. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were many arguments both for and against women’s suffrage. Many of these arguments are outlined, in a satirical manner, by Marie Jenny Howe in “An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.” Throughout the monologue, she compares two opposite and extreme arguments to point out how ridiculous an extreme belief can be. One of her arguments can almost be applied to Duniway’s argument. Howe states that, “If the women were enfranchised they would vote exactly as their husbands do and only double the existing vote. Do you like that argument? If not, take this one. If the Women were enfranchised they would vote against their own husbands, thus creating dissension, family quarrels, and divorce,” (102). If men and women truly are two halves of a whole, as Duniway suggests, then the first statement would most certainly be true. If the second statement is taken as true and the votes of men and women cancel each other out and create conflict, then wouldn’t the same be true if voting were left to only men as well? If conflicting votes led to quarrel and instability within a family, then wouldn’t conflicting votes among men result in quarrel and instability in society? Looking at both of these extremes as Howe does throughout the monologue, leads one to realize that a more moderate view would be more functional and practical. –Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it intriguing in the article by Melanie Gustafon, that even though the progressive party did not accept African American men, there were still some African American men that supported the party.  My guess is they saw the party as being &amp;#039;progressive&amp;#039; and would be the best party to, hopefully, eventually carry their own political desires.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was a nice change of pace to read what a woman against suffrage had to say about suffrage.  I found her points intriguing, but I also wondered why facts were not proof... facts are usually there to prove one point or another.  The article about Alice Paul and the conditions under which the prisoners were kept were horrible! No fresh air, the sweeping of dust into the cells, and feeding them basically raw pork is just horrible.  Did this happen at most prisons?  Does it still happen?  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the&amp;quot;Partisan Women in the Progressive Era&amp;quot; by Melanie Gustafson very interesting. I didn&amp;#039;t know that the idea of partisan vs. non-partisan was actually a gendered idea, nor had I thought about the idea that women&amp;#039;s auxiliaries could have been seen as women&amp;#039;s lack of dedication to the political arena (pg 250). However, one of the points she makes that stood out to me the most was the fact that women suffragists, specifically, Ida HUsted Harper, felt that women&amp;#039;s involvement in partisan activities was actually damaging to the suffrage movement. My line of thinking would say that the involvement in the partisan groups would actually help the movement since it would show the dedication that women had to politics that supposedly the women&amp;#039;s auxiliaries did not. -Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the  Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman&amp;#039;s Party, 1921&amp;quot; it is mentioned that after the Senate and President remained silent on the issue of women&amp;#039;s suffrage they announced their intention to hold a (peaceful) demonstration yet, when President Wilson heard this, he immediately said he would accept and talk to a delegation of women. I was wondering if he decided to talk to the women because he was afraid that they would meet together and gain support instead of quieting down if the bill didn&amp;#039;t pass? And if this was his hope, how could he have expected the women who wanted the vote so badly to simply back down? In other words, did he talk with them with the hope of preventing the very demonstration that they had despite (or maybe because) of this meeting?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet again I found the readings in Modern American Women absolutely fascinating! I enjoyed reading how many different ways the suffrage movement was promoted and with what ideas, as well with ideas that the anti-suffragists would use (although that came through a satire). Perhaps one of my favorites of these readings was the first one, &amp;quot;A Western Suffragist Talks to her Eastern Sisters&amp;quot; by Abigail Scott Duniway. It said in the introduction that the East coast suffragists saw her as more radical than they wished to be but I don&amp;#039;t understand what was so radical about the ideas expressed in the piece we read (this may simply be due to the time period difference). I would have thought that her arguments that the movement was not a war between the genders but a movement for interdependence and that women did not want to remove men from their rights or limit them, but simply wanted to gain the ability to chose their own rights would have been comforting to those men who felt that the movement was a threat to their power. The &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot; as also very interesting, at the same time irritating because I am aware that there were women who did actually hold these beliefs. However I do wonder if they would have phrased them in this way or it the arguments were exaggerated in this piece due to its satirical nature. Lastly, I also found the rules contained in &amp;quot;Front Door Lobbying&amp;#039; for Suffrage&amp;#039; by Maud Wood Park to be extremely interesting because it demonstrates the desire of women to gain suffrage while still being viewed as lady-like and proper. I found every single one of these readings interesting but it was those three that stood out to me the most.-Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Marie Jenny Howe&amp;#039;s An Anti-Suffrage Monologue very interesting. Her 5th anti-suffrage couplet I found to be very funny and some what accurate. She stated &amp;quot;women can not band together. They are incapable of organization. No two women can even be friends. Women are cats.&amp;quot; The fact that I am a girl I really see this. Throughout our lives we deal with our friends stabbing us in the back and someone gossiping about the other. Especially as I have gotten older women have become a lot more brutal. I do find this to be an issue in social settings and political settings. However since there was and is still a belief, why do women accomplish so much when its more then one person fighting for the same goal? Is it because we are still male dominated and we have them to regulate women&amp;#039;s organizations? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure if I agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s sentiment of &amp;quot;funny&amp;quot; when referring to Howe&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue.&amp;quot;  In one passage she states, &amp;quot;Enfranchisement is what makes man man.  Disfranchisement is what makes woman woman.  If women were enfranchised every man would be just like every woman and every woman would be just like every man.  There would be no difference between them.  and don&amp;#039;t you think this would rob life of just a little of its poetry and romance?&amp;quot;  What romance novel was this lady reading!  She also goes on to characterize the women that participate in the suffrage movement by saying, &amp;quot;Observe their inability, their mental disability, their spiritual instability and general debility!&amp;quot;  Are these the characteristics of only the women seeking their rights or of all women?  It appears that this women can make a claim to the characteristics depicted in Amanda&amp;#039;s post because she has obviously exhibited this behavior in her writing.  I think the &amp;quot;Antis&amp;quot; were afraid of change;I would guess they were quite comfortable within the sanctuary of their homes, and the thought of operating outside the domestic sphere was intimidating.--LisaM  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Abigail Scott Duniway piece she made a point that I believe is dead on. &amp;quot;She said A home w/o a man in it is only half a home. A government w/o a women is only half a government. A man w/o a women is only one-half of a pair... a women w/o a man is like the other half...&amp;quot; What I don&amp;#039;t understand is how men of this time period don&amp;#039;t understand that if they did not have women in the home there wouldn&amp;#039;t be a home. Everything she does for him wouldn&amp;#039;t get done, and god forbid he does anything for himself when he gets home. Relating this document to Howe, she says women are there to wash the dishes and if the mistress of the house doesn&amp;#039;t do it she hires someone. A man washing the dishes would be &amp;quot;blasphemy.&amp;quot; Even before the 1900s I find it funny that men don&amp;#039;t realize women do dictate their lives, women were influencing their husbands political activity. Women have a way of manipulating men to think they had the brilliant idea when really it was the women&amp;#039;s decision all along. So in reality if women just stopped standing by their men then a large a majority of the American male population would probably be helpless. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you to an extent, Amanda.  You&amp;#039;re right when you say that women influenced their husbands&amp;#039; political activity, but if you think about the reasons men were afraid to let women vote, one of them dealt with the fear that women would vote exactly like their husbands and without their own agenda.  In reality, these women wanted the vote so that they could help themselves.  I don&amp;#039;t think most of them wanted to vote the same way as the men in their lives did.  But your right; women did have (and still do) have a major impact on the way men acted politically. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda, and I was really struck by the comment &amp;quot;A home without a man in it is only half a home. A government without a woman is only half a government...&amp;quot; But I think the fact that men didn&amp;#039;t really understand demonstrates the double standard at that time. It seems that they thought that yes, a home without a man is only half a home, but they only thought that women should stay in their &amp;quot;domestic sphere&amp;quot; and should not enter the public sphere. The double standard is that men have to be in the home or it would only be half of a home, but women&amp;#039;s place is only in the home. In this same article, I was also struck by her comments on the &amp;quot;evolution&amp;quot; of homemaking and her discussion of how more was being done in factories. She also discusses how more girls will work more in the factories through this process of evolution. I thought that these comments were a little brave, because isn&amp;#039;t that what men were fearing? That women would leave the home and enter the workforce? But then, she reconciles it a little by saying that the younger girls will go to work so that the mothers can stay home... --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with amanda also to an extend on Duniway&amp;#039;s qoute. And to an extent I mean I agree with the qoute based on the time in which it was said, because you have to remember that specific time period.  It is true for that time period that a house with out a man was only half a home, and half a government and so on. The home is where the women were, but financially the man for the most part was the supporter, or head of house hold. So yes with out a women being in the house a man would not know what to do.  However in today&amp;#039;s world I think it is interesting that society has evolved to where now either sex can be independent, and not really needing to depend on the other sex for whatever.  Therefore her qoute had a good meaning at the time.&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle M.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree with Amanda and Kelly.  These women wanted the vote so that they could help change their own lives.  They were already able to influence their men, so why would they vote they way their husbands did.  Many of these women probably already had an influence on who their husbands were voting for.  Changing it so that they could vote only insured that they could better fix the problems faced in their town.  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In MP the Inez Haynes piece I found to be extremely inspiring. These women speak to two senators and they honestly tell these women your bill is not coming up today. Then you have Wilson saying I am in sympathy with you, a nice little white lie and the suffragists saying ha I will believe it when I see it. I really like this piece because they weren&amp;#039;t naive about what was really going on. But what really gets me is that these two senators did not lie to the women they were honestly like no not happening, then you have the President pretty much lying. I find that comical because it really shows who Wilson really is. But my question is why would he lie to these women? I don&amp;#039;t understand how he could not think this was not an important issue and that when its time for re-election his presidency is in their hands. So my question is why would he lie to these women? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading Florence Luscomb&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic,&amp;quot; I couldn&amp;#039;t help but be impressed by the lengths these suffragettes went to in order to have their voices heard.  The numbers she gave at the end, &amp;quot;We have spoken to 24,900 people ... we gave held 97 meetings ... and have obtained over 2000 signatures&amp;quot; is absolutely incredible.  When studying the Suffrage movement, you never think of the extremes that some women went to and Luscomb and her colleague surely went above and beyond to get their opinions all over Massachusetts.  I also liked her comment about taking the roof away from a female speaker and she immediately becomes a raving lunatic.  If you think about it, the perception was true, especially since it went against the good old Sphere of Domesticity.  Oh, and my apologies for using the word &amp;quot;suffragette.&amp;quot;  Blame Mary Poppins. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kelly I found &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings: A New Suffrage Tactic,&amp;quot; of great interest.  Women suffrage groups obviously realized that to be heard they required a larger voice from the population of women. It is easy for government officials to dismiss a handful of suffrage organizers as fanatical, but a large group of women is a force to be reckoned with. The tactic of conducting open-air meetings allowed the suffrage representatives access to a segment of the women&amp;#039;s population that they were not likely to see in any organization meeting.--LisaM &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked Maud Wood Park&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;&amp;#039;Front Door Lobbying&amp;#039; For Suffrage.&amp;quot;  I thought the list of rules that were drafted were a great representation of how women tried to still be seen as moral and proper but still be able to voice their opinions for their cause.  My favorite line, however, was the last section where Maud Wood Park discusses her favorite report which said &amp;quot;He said, &amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m with you; I&amp;#039;m for it, I&amp;#039;m going to vote for it.  Now don&amp;#039;t bother me,&amp;#039; all in one breath.&amp;quot;  There must have been a large number of these amusing reports because I&amp;#039;m sure the men they were lobbying to enjoyed their visits.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly.  The list of rules really demonstrated how it was good to be involved in politics but yet at the same time still follow the ideals of society.  Women wanted a larger role but were smart enough to realize that they needed to work toward it with baby steps.  They couldn&amp;#039;t just jump into the political realm, instead they could enter it but only by remaining lady like. -- Kellye&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marie Howe&amp;#039;s essay on anti-suffrage was unlike anything I had ever read before.  Her beleives or arguments were unbeleivable.  She was totally unsupportive of the female gender, and shot down women, and really herself. She essentially calls women dumb, when she says, &amp;quot;women cannot understand politics.&amp;quot; Well, why can&amp;#039;t they, thats what education is for(102). Also she does not care about fact, instead she wants proof(103). Well aren&amp;#039;t facts the samething as proof? Her whole essay makes me wonder what kind of childhood she had, because it was kind of angering to read how she thought women were just suppose to look up to their husbands and remain the little submissive women always, and have no role to play other than the house wife.  Her own arguments have no proof and really just sound dumb.&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michelle, I am guessing you did not realize that the article by Howe was satirical, your reaction to the article really shows how effective a weapon satire was in this instance. I think this shows that Howe did an excellent job explaining her point and in pointing out the fundamental flaws &amp;amp; hypocrisy in the arguments of the anti-suffragists, in a comical way. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haynes recollection of the protest at Lafayette does an excellent job of exploring the feelings of frustration the suffragists were feeling at the time. As you read you begin to see how these women were continually being misled and disrespected by powerful men who held the key to what they had been working so hard to achieve for decades. They were so close to achieving their goals only to have them slip out of grasp time and time again, the tension and angst these women are feeling becomes palpable as you read. I am surprised more of the protests did not turn violent --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speech given by Duniway really exemplifies how powerful the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle class ideals of womanhood really were. Here is a woman who is clearly as independent and career minded as any man yet she still works to quell any fears the nation might have. She reassures them that politics won&amp;#039;t corrupt the women and that women won&amp;#039;t neglect their household duties. She was smart to swallow her pride in this instance, she knew how to get what she wanted. -- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to read that Jane Adams endorsed Theodore Roosevelt…. He is not someone that stands out in my mind as a proponent of gender equality. I was equally as surprised by his public letter thanking Jane Adams and supporting the women’s movement.  – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did women’s organizations, such as the League of Women Voters keep the idea of “the nonpartisan woman” alive if it was hurting the movement and allowing women to be seen as less dedicated or uninterested in politics? – Cat Debelius &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found “Front Door Lobbying” for Suffrage to be extremely ironic. Perhaps this was there tactic, to up play the social stigma of womanhood in order to get what they want, but the Directions and Don’ts List for the lobbying suffragist read just like a Cosmo magazine. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in Abigail Scott Duniway&amp;#039;s speech that she tries to point out that the suffrage movement was not in &amp;quot;a spirit of warfare between the sexes&amp;quot; but in the &amp;quot;spirit of harmony and inter-dependence between men and women&amp;quot; (96).  I think it is interesting that she goes on to explain how much women &amp;quot;like&amp;quot; men, was she trying to show that all women in the suffrage movement were not hard-core man hating feminists? Did feminist&amp;#039;s have that image of man haters at that time?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought it was interesting reading Marie Jenny Howe in her &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot;.  I was a little confused at one point because she says in one sentence that her argument against suffrage was that women would not use it but then in the next sentence says that if they were enfranchised they would spend all their time at the polls and neglect their family.  Ok so which is it?? How can she not go to the polls but at the same time spend all her time there? Her whole argument makes absolutely no sense to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also a little confused at first when I read &amp;quot;An Anti-Suffrage Monologue,&amp;quot; but after going back I realized that that was the point of the whole thing--to be confusing. I think that Howe does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistencies and ridiculous nature of the arguments of the &amp;quot;antis.&amp;quot; She points out that the central flaw of the antis involves the fact that they use two contradicting arguments to support their claims. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting to read about &amp;quot;Open-Air Meetings&amp;quot; by Florence Luscomb. The meetings reminded me more of a potluck type ordeal than a way of gaining votes and getting a serious point across. Also, when Florence talks about a successful &amp;quot;summer of campaigning&amp;quot; I thought to myself wow have times changed. I can&amp;#039;t imagine Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain going out to any large open outdoors space for their campaign. It sounds like their open air meetings were more for an entertainment purpose. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the the &amp;quot;Anti-Suffrage Monologue&amp;quot; by Marie Jenny Howe to be incredibly frustrating to read. The quote &amp;quot;If women vote, what will become of men? They will all slink off drunk and disorderly. We antis understand men&amp;quot; Really?? Did someone actually write that? &amp;quot;What makes a husband faithful and loving? The ballot and the monopoly of that privledge.&amp;quot; Again, really!? I&amp;#039;m not sure I need to say more. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought &amp;quot;Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail&amp;quot; was particularily interesting by showing the reaction to radical female behavior. By being merely showing an active, aggressive tactic Alice Paul was labeled as manic and psychopathic by the standards of the day. This extreme blindness in the doctors ability to understand Paul&amp;#039;s actions reminded me of the categorization of homosexuality as a psychological disorder until the early 1970s. The thought of women&amp;#039;s rights was so foreign to some men such as Doctor White makes the progress women did make in this era seem exponential. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Jessica, I really enjoyed Duniway&amp;#039;s speech. She really brings up an interesting point about men illogically mistrusting women with the right to vote. Going back to all that we have been studying with the cult of domesticity and such an applying it to the ideas of this speech, women are ultimately good and sincere. Men trust the future of the nation, their children, in their hands. Why then do men deny women the right to vote? --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought &amp;quot;Open Air Suffrage&amp;quot; was interesting. Though not a novel idea, bringing together many people for one cause out in public is a great way to get people to notice. Yet I think I agree with Rose when seh points out that it seems like these meetings weren&amp;#039;t all that serious but more like a friendly gathering. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how women are said to have &amp;quot;feminized&amp;quot; politics in the Gustafson essay. The New York Times thought the effect of women on politics was apparently to introduce decorum, manners, and non-smoking. This seems connected to other instances in which feminists of the time embrace arguments that today we might consider anti-feminist, for example, women arguing they can moralize politics because women are inherently more moral. ~ Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elizabeth asks about &amp;quot;Inez Haynes Irwin Recalls the  Militance of Suffragists in the National Woman&amp;#039;s Party, 1921&amp;quot; whether the president thought he could prevent protest by meeting with the women&amp;#039;s delegations. It seems like it was probably a much better option for Wilson than ignoring the groups, which might have further inflamed them; however, I&amp;#039;d be interested to know how much it would have cost Wilson politically to make a concession to the delegations on when or how he would force a vote, and whether or not their resort to &amp;quot;militant&amp;quot; tactics hurt him worse than an early concession would have. ~ Matt Struth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked myself the same question Ashley asked above about why African American men joined the progressive party even though they didn&amp;#039;t believe in giving them a vote. I think that it&amp;#039;s because they figured that out of all the other groups the Progressive party would grant them a vote faster than any of the other choices out there. Or there was probably less animosity towards them than other groups maybe. - Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the Inez Haynes Irwin article really interesting. I was surprised to see how quickly the President agreed to meet with a delegation of women after he heard they were going to strike.  Like Elizabeth I have to ask why? What was the President afraid would happen if he didn&amp;#039;t meet with the women. -- Christine w.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-14T13:39:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
In Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article I found it sad to read how the mother of working women expected so much more of their working daughters than of their working sons. Not only was being looked down upon for being in the same level as men bad enoough, but they were expected to cook, clean and do other odd end things around the house after a tiresome day at work, while the sons did nothing but relax after a tiresome day at work. The part that most hit me was Cecil&amp;#039;s story. Her mother has her work and wants to hear nothing about how Cecil is tired from work yet she has the nerver to say &amp;quot;John is so tired when he returns from work&amp;quot; about her husband!!! -Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting to read Harriet Brunkhurst’s article in Major Problems in American Women’s History. It was sad that the women were not as respected as men for holding full time business jobs. However, I think it was largely to do with the context of the time. Mothers couldn’t empathize with their daughters because they expected them to play the same role in the household that they had once held. They knew that their daughters were the main providers, but the idea of this was out of line with the traditional norms and expectations of society at the time. This conflict created a double standard for the working girls, conforming to both the expectations one would hold for the head of the house as well as the expectations for the woman of the house, with fewer of the benefits of each. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other thing that stuck out to me about Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s piece was the bit about housework being so much more tiresome than paid jobs were at the time.  It kind of brings up that little dig that with the sphere of domesticity, women were expected to work around the house and were no longer considered real &amp;quot;breadwinners&amp;quot; because their jobs were innate.  It seems almost as if the mothers were upset their daughters could go out and make money for &amp;quot;shorter workdays&amp;quot; while they were stuck at home taking care of the household and making sure the family was comfortable when they returned home, finding their family ungrateful for all they do.  -- Kelly Wuyscik  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article entitled &amp;quot;Business Girls,&amp;quot; she identifies how a mother and daughter struggle in their relationship.  Despite the daughter&amp;#039;s role as the breadwinner, the mother, who is a homemaker, inflicts her judgment of her daughter&amp;#039;s behavior within the confines of the home.  The mother &amp;quot;would yield without question to husband or son occupying the same position, debates Rose&amp;#039;s every movement simply because she is a girl.&amp;quot;(266) We read about suppression of race and gender, but the suppression from within the structure of a girl&amp;#039;s life can dictate a life of inadequacy.  Our socialization and placement in the world is influenced by school, government, friends and most importantly family.  The family instills values and beliefs and is the most enduring agent in the life of a child. If this type of suppression exists within the family, what can be expected of a child as an adult?--LisaM &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Lisa makes a good point about what can be expected of a child as an adult.  I know my mother struggles with having her mom live with her right now.  My grandma was raised that women stay home, do housework, raise children, and have a &amp;#039;man&amp;#039; provide for them.  Every day mom comes home tired and wore out (its been stressful at work lately) and my grandmother gets on her case about laundry, dishes, vacuming, and the like the moment she walks in, but says nothing to my father who helps my mom out with housework all the time.  She fights with mom but when dad says something she shuts up and leaves mom alone.  Its almost like I watch and live in this time setting because she also does it to me when I&amp;#039;m visiting my parents --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In continuation of the discussion on Harriet Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article, I feel that the constrictions of women&amp;#039;s lives from within the family can still be seen today. Although less explicitly obvious I still feel that the expectations to adhere to domestic sphere are very strong. There is still an understanding in our culture that a woman is in charge of the home. Today, when a male takes on domestic chores he is not necessarily seen as less male, but when a female does not keep a clean room or home she is blamed and suffers the burden of conforming to the domestic ideals still implicit. I don&amp;#039;t think that women have yet been freed from the guilt of not following the social norm. Unfortunately, as Brunkhurst&amp;#039;s article demonstrates, for the most part it is the female relatives placing the burden upon young women. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a man in what I feel is a very egalitarian marriage, I can second Meredith&amp;#039;s post above completely!  My mother-in-law was a traditional stay at home mom who raised two daughters, 10 years apart in age.  She raised the daughters, kept an immaculate and spotless house (still does now), and made sure the home was a &amp;quot;refuge&amp;quot; for her husband who was a Philadelphia police officer.  When my in-laws come down on occasion, she doesn&amp;#039;t understand when my wife is not flying around the house picking stuff up.  She&amp;#039;ll sometimes chide my wife when she sees me vacuuming the house or doing laundry.  Despite the fact that we both work full time, her mom&amp;#039;s expectation is that Debbie should be keeping house most of the time as well.  She really does not comprehend that the &amp;quot;second shift&amp;quot; at home, with a houseful of kids, is a two person deal.  To be honest, I probably still only do about 30 percent to my wife&amp;#039;s 70 percent of the domestic stuff - not that I&amp;#039;m complaining!  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read Harriet Brunkhurst’s article in Major Problems in American Women’s History. I agree with all the points above and would like to make a few additional comments. Life for women today is similar to what &amp;quot;The Business Girl&amp;quot; in 1910 had experienced. If a Mother works outside the home today she is still expected to keep a clean house, have dinner on the table and have well behaved and well adjusted children. However, today&amp;#039;s Working Mothers have shortcuts in which Roses and her mother did not have. For example, a vaccume cleaner,a microwave and even Easy Mac. &lt;br /&gt;
Rose is a successful women in the working world, however at home she is still Rose and has her family responsibilities. As far as the Mother/Daughter relationship goes...I think it is common for Mothers to accept the way women were treated and expects the daughters to follow suite. Why shake things up? &amp;quot;If it was good enough for me what is in not good enough for you?&amp;quot; Younger generations are more likely to make changes instead of accepting traditional ways.--Nikole Wellman &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read about the Triangle Factory Fire before. My son studied this elementary school. I read The New York Times Reports the tragedy of the Triangle Factory Fire, 1911 and thought the same thing...Immigrants were working for the American dream. The reading said that most of the people could barely speak English. They dealt with the poor working conditions because they had to feed their families. It seems that Immigrants today are similar.  They accept poor wages and working conditions. They gather at locations(a particular 7/11 comes to mind) hoping to get a labor job for that day. Obviously, there are other immigration issues today, however the fact that people come to America to do better for themselves and families often deal with poor labor and wage conditions.  &lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the Triangle factory locked the doors so that the workers could not leave was inhumane. --Nikole Wellman&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comparisons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to compare Modern American Women: “The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service” with how Fannie Williams describes the “Problem of Employment for Negro Women in Major Problems. Both of these sources describe working conditions for African American women. The first source discusses the role of the “nurse” in the household. The nurse however is responsible for much more than caring for the health of children and family, she is asked to carry out household tasks as well. It is almost as if slavery is continued by the need and difficulty of African American women to find work. The second source points out specifically that, African American women are more commonly employed to domestic service. She seems to take a different spin out however by suggesting that if you can’t be employed to a more honorable position, then make the position you can work more honorable. The question then becomes, what makes a position honorable? And how can you elevate a position if you have no control over the pay, benefits, or job description?  --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How was sexual harassment handled during the early 20th century?  I mean there are accounts of needing witnesses and having detectives, but it all seems a bit informal. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Justin, I am curious how sexual harassment was handled.  It seemed that many males got away with sexual harassing females because the females did not want to lose their job.  Did this occur often?  Did many of the harassers get dealt with? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The readings in MP and MAW both discuss how difficult the lives of working women were, for every type of women.  The immagrants were over worked and underpaid as well as black women, but they had to fight even harder to find a job, and then there were the white women who worked in department stores who ended up selling themselves to make ends meet.  What was interesting about the department store essay was how none of the women referred to what they did after hours as prostiting.  I assume this is because they were possibly ashamed of what they were doing and trying to make it sound like something its not.  It was more than just going out to the theatre or dinner.  Also surprisingly enough these girls were very young as well as the men they were intertaining seemed to be married most of the time.  This was easy money for them which seemed to be why it was so appealing.&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Fannie Barrier Williams thoughts on the “problem of Employments for Negro Women” to be particularly interesting because rather then focusing on domestic servitude as wearing women down (all the essays in MAW did), she actually thought that it ALSO created girls with “more than ordinary strength of character.” She evens calls upon black women to raise the status of servant women. It is like she encourages women to take this job and then actively work to elevate the status of the occupation. However, it seems to focus a lot on the job as other people in society view it…. which is a very middle class America concern. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Judy Yung, “Unbound Feet: Chinese Women in the Public Sphere&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by the large role that the YWCA played in the liberation of Chinese women.  From what I read, I think that they were more liberated than white women. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Justin I was surprised how the YWCA played such an important role.  These women were isolated and this organization pulled them from their closets.  It is amazing how customs shaped the Chinese woman&amp;#039;s life experience.  In &amp;quot;Unbound Feet&amp;quot; it states, &amp;quot;it was considered immodest to be seen too many times during the year.&amp;quot;(263) Chinese women were made invisible by their culture. The idea of seeing a friend only on a special occasion, which was not due to distance, or the need to travel in a closed coach for short distances is suffocating.   The YWCA recognized this and offered an opportunity that allowed women of similar backgrounds to meet and receive assistance outside their homes, but the most important contribution the YWCA gave these women was power.  The power to meet, to decide and to change their lives in a way that they could now participate in it.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it kind of interesting how the political events taking place in China had a big effect on the way Chinese people in Ameica lived. I admire how the women in Chinese in America helped the Revoultionary cause back in the homeland and helped liberize the women both here in America and in China by allowing them to unbind their feet, go out in public and learn to read and be educated and become independent from men.- Emely Amaya&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it intriguiing while reading Judy Yung&amp;#039;s essay in Unequal Sisters that the protestant church was the first to encourage chinese women and that the Chinese women&amp;#039;s involvement with church activities helped to expand their gender roles.  I knew foot binding has ended, but its always nice to read about something that ended that I felt was cruel.  I also found it interesting that to support the revolution, women in China did various activities such as enlisting in the army and engaging in dangerous uncover work.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Unbound Feet&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t go in depth on the foot binding issue.  Based upon what I have read the process of foot binding was painful and and caused physical problems later in life, but what struck me was that there was a stigma attached to it.  Foot binding made a woman more desirable, which makes them marriage worthy.  I read one account where a potential mother-in-law checked the feet of the potential bride.  If she had not been foot bound, the marriage was not approved by the family.  Mothers performed this painful procedure, which began around the age of 4, on their daughters.  Can you imagine putting a child in pain to conform to the norms within the culture.--LisaM&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Lisa, I can&amp;#039;t imagine putting a child that young through that much pain only to conform to the norms of the culture! It&amp;#039;s interesting that the women, who know the pain that the foot binding causes, were the ones to bind the feet of the young girls. I think that it just shows how much women get caught up in the gender roles and norms of a given culture. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Judy Yung&amp;#039;s essay she says that black and Chinese women modeled their clubs after the white womens, but they formed these clubs because they were not allowed in the white womens, so why model it after them because after all each had different motives?  This also brings me to another question which I&amp;#039;m not sure even deals with this just yet during this time, but the question of segregation.  Everything was segregated into black and white like schools, theatres, and restrooms, so where does that leave people like the Chinese?&lt;br /&gt;
--Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Michelle, I think the reason they modeled their clubs after the white women because they wanted to be accepted into that culture.  Even though they had different motives they wanted acceptance as well.  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed by the amount Chinese women were in the public sphere.  I feel that if they had a larger population and an earlier start they could have surpassed the efforts of white women.  I was surprised that the church was one of the main organizations that helped these women enter the public sphere.  I would have thought that the church would have tried to keep women in traditional roles. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also surprised by the role that the church played in bringing the Chinese women into the public sphere. Although, I think that the church&amp;#039;s main effort may have been to simply Americanize the Chinese women, and maybe they realized that they had to get them out of the house in order to do that. In that sense, maybe bringing them into the public sphere and beginning to change the gender norms was an afterthought rather than the primary motivation. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems as if the Chinese women first had to break through their own incredibly repressive culture, only to enter into what is a comparibly better but still repressive American Culture. Not only did these women face gender discrimination from men, racial discrimination from the other ethnic groups, but they were discriminated against in amazingly archaic ways by their own people (foot-binding,not leaving the home save for once a year, etc.). Despite the prejudices imposed on the Chinese by Americans, the lifting of their own cultural restraints after the Chinese revolution must have been a wonderful and exciting experience for the women. --Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the chapter “Unbound Feet: Chinese Women in the Public Sphere,” Chinese women had different views on why they should create clubs. The values they wanted to help in their clubs were support for education, socioeconomic mobility, and community improvement. The group of people who encouraged the Chinese women to organize the activities was the Protestant churches. Out of all the religions why did the Protestants support the Chinese women? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this particular reading very interesting. In a way I saw a connection between all of the movements that women made into society. Most, if not all, women of all races appear to have been able to push themselves further into the public sphere because of the activities that they became involved in through churches. This appears to be no different in the case of Chinese American women. Judy Yung specifically mentions how they were able to expand their roles in society due to church groups and that being involved allowed them to leave their homes. I find this connection very important in seeing connections between various races. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Ashley&amp;#039;s comment, I think the Protestant churches were most likely to support the Chinese women because of their missionary spirit. Also Protestant churches were places where many women, white and other races, came together to create support groups and these churches were probably just reaching out to the Chinese to bring them into their church and in return this brought them out into society. I was also intrigued by the role that YWCA played in the Chinese womens&amp;#039; assimilation. I knew that church communities helped but I had never thought of a large organization like the YWCA being a tool for Chinese women to learn about American customs. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also suprised to learn how involved the YWCA was in helping Chinese women to improve their conditions. I would have thought of it has more of a middle class white organization. --Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Burdens of Rural Woman&amp;#039;s Lives ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read in &amp;quot;The Burdens of Rural Woman&amp;#039;s Lives&amp;quot; that the husband stayed home during the Civil War after being drafted by paying $300.  It seemed to be a parallel to more recent wars like the Vietnam War. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going off of Justin&amp;#039;s comment, I was actually curious about the farm woman&amp;#039;s husban in &amp;quot;The Burden&amp;#039;s of Rural Woman&amp;#039;s Lives.&amp;quot;  Was it common for men to pay the $300 and get out of service?  Or was this something only the wealthier could get away with?  I ask this question mostly because everything I&amp;#039;ve learned about the Civil War indicated that there were soldiers needed on the battlefields and by reading about this family, they didn&amp;#039;t seem like they had all that much money.  -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found interesting in &amp;quot;the burden of rural womens lives&amp;quot; the fact that this womoan not only never complained, but almost was bragging at points about how hard her work was but how easily she seemed to accomplish it. She talked about how many articles she was able to read while churning butter, the record amounts of wood or other goods she would stack and produce, and how at 58 she could easily walk a mile as fast as anyone else. She never complained even when mentioning that only 5 of her 8 children were still alive. Her son was attending Cornell, but she seemed most proud of the fact that she has survived such a hard life. I take my hat off to her. - Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Buffalobird Woman&amp;#039;s Story ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The article I really took interest in was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Buffalobird Woman&amp;#039;s Story&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I know that in Native American societies women were the oweners of the land they were in charge of agricultural practices. This had been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, and the fact that the government comes in a just changes everything really bothers me. They give them all these crops to plant when they don&amp;#039;t even eat them and a lot of the crops are left in the ground. In reality the nation was just wasting their money providing seeds and showing them new planting techniques. I find it funny that in the end the women states that her old ways are more efficient then the new ways. She even proves this by winning a prize for her corn because she grew it the way she knew. What I am so confused about is why the government had to control how they grew their crops? Why waste time even worrying about what they are growing and how? Is it really that important of an issue? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda it seems like the government came in and told the Indians how and what to grow, but didnt teach them anything past that. The article talks about how the Indians did not like the way the food tasted or how it would spoil after a while. If the government was going to take the time to show the Indians how to produce the new foods, why not teach them how to perserve the new foods, or even cook and season them, so that the food was edible. It looks like the gov&amp;#039;t only gave the Indians half of the knowledge they needed to make the new foods work. And if the Indians were happy beofre why even change it up in the first place? - Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rose Cohen Describes Her First Job in New York City, 1892 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rose Cohen Describes Her First Job in New York City, 1892&amp;#039;&amp;#039;really upset me. Number one the fact that this factory employer intentionally took advantage of the fact that she was young she was taken care of. It also really bothered me when her father pointed out to her that she was being employed weekly so she couldn&amp;#039;t get paid more. I don&amp;#039;t understand why the father would ever be fine with something like that. She is working just as hard as him to make money so the rest of the family could come to New York. The part that upset me the most is when she talked about how on her walks home she would pretend that she was coming home to her family and a warm meal. The last line&amp;quot; I used to keep this up until I turned the key in the door and opened it and stood facing the dark, cold, silent room.&amp;quot; which makes me question, why even bother going through all this? Wouldn&amp;#039;t it be better for the family to be together? Even if things were bad at least they would have each other. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Amanda, I had a hard time getting through &amp;quot;Rose Cohen Describes Her First Job in New York City, 1892,&amp;quot; because it was such a depressing piece.  Listening to her little voice describe how terrible her life was and how horribly her father was about her situation just upset me a lot.  The paragraph about her imaginary family was so heart wrenching I couldn&amp;#039;t help but want that for her.  To come home to an cold, lonely, empty house must have been terrible, especially at her age.  I could never imaging going through something like that. -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Amanda, I also found this story very touching but I feel like you can see her desire to have her whole family together again. Her logic seems to be that if she could put up with the horrible treatment just a little longer she would then be able to be around her mother and the children again despite the hardships. I think she would agree that it would be better for the family to be together, which is why she pushes through the difficulties. At the same time, I don&amp;#039;t fully agree why the father and Rose left the family instead of her father and someone else.- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I never actually realized that the poor treatment of immigrant women really happened. I have heard and ready stories, but these primary documents we had to read for today opened my eyes that the horrific treatment towards women was the NORM NOT THE EXCEPTION. Rose accepted this arrangement as she knew that if she left her job her family would suffer. Also, she was replaceable, if she left some other young girl would take her place. It seems that so many immigrants are after the American Dream, they will endure just about anything to get it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was very difficult to get through the piece on Rose Cohen. I have previously studied immigrant women and factory work but this really emphasized how difficult and depressing a low wage factory job was. In some ways, secondary sources on the topic make it seem less personal and it&amp;#039;s easier to hear about these young girls working long hours and returning home to silent homes but when you read a firsthand account like this one, it strikes you how young some of these girls were.&lt;br /&gt;
-Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Others ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed by how well written some of the pieces were in the MAW reading. Obviously I am not referring to the writings to the Chicago based DEFENDER, but the two letters to the Jewish Forward, and the article &amp;quot;Harsh Conditions of Domestic Servitude&amp;quot; were both intelligent well worded essays. This points out to me the wasted potential of what must have been thousands upon thousands of women during this time period. They were reduced to factory, shopgirl, or domestic work, when they were clearly educated enough to make a real contribution to society. - Landon Davis &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Agnes Nester&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;The Story of a Glove Maker,&amp;quot; explained very well the way women and young girls were treated in factories.  The fact that they had clocks, not so they knew when to leave, but to calculate how much time they had lost is truly disheartening.  It was unfair of the factory owners to take advantage of them and deduct pay because their machine broke.  It just bothers me that things that were out of control were penalties to them.  Walking around waiting for the beltboy to come and fix your sewing machine should not mean you lose pay.  But I suppose that since women were considered such cheap labor and since the factory owners were skimping on that much, why should we expect them to have functioning machinery too? -- Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the journal &amp;quot;The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service&amp;quot; in MAW to be an eye opener. Reading about the negro woman and her daily taks including 14-16 hours of work with nursing children not hers as one of them to be insane. She was the main caretaker of these children with restricted visitation of her own.. seriously!? What got to me was the quote &amp;quot;I live a treadmill life; and I see my own children onl when they happen to see me on the streets when I am out with the children, or when my children come to the &amp;#039;yard&amp;#039; to see me.&amp;quot; -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought the quote by Frances Willard to be incredibly true with her parallels to life and bicycles. &amp;quot;I always felt a strong attraction toward the bicycle, because it is the vehicle of so much harmless pleasure, and because the skill required in handling it obliges those who mount to keep clear heads and steady hands.&amp;quot; I&amp;#039;m sure it was hard to keep a clear head when some of the work these women were doing wouldn&amp;#039;t allow them to see their family. -- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the quote by Francis Willard as she learned to ride a bicycle to be quite meaningful as well. It was a vehicle that forced women for a brief moment to concentrate on their own thoughts rather than what their husband or children or parents needed of them. It was a moment in which a woman could prove to herself her own strength and experience a physical freedom. Quite symbolic of breaking free of many of society&amp;#039;s constraints.-- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Story of a Glove Maker&amp;quot;, it amazed me how hard these women worked and also how they had to pay out their own money to do their job like paying 50 cents a week for the use of power to run the machines!! That is insane. How did anyone make enough money to live on when they are charged just to use the sewing machines?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting reading about the women who wrote to the Jewish Daily Forward.  The story of the young girl who lost her fiancee in the triangle shop fire. I felt so sorry for her. She was all alone in a new country and the advice she gets is &amp;quot;what the earth covers must be forgotten.&amp;quot; (65) It would be hard for anyone to get over what she went through and I know it had been four years since the event but the advice still seems harsh to me.~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service&amp;quot;, I was curious about the &amp;quot;service pan&amp;quot;, the essay stated that it was left over food that the cook would &amp;quot;dispose&amp;quot; of.  Was the cook dividing it up among her neighbors? How much left overs did they have? Was it just a once a week thing since the writer said she could only go home once every 2 weeks or could cooks go home more often than the nurse could?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting in the document of “Female Perspective on the Great migration” that over 500,000 blacks left the south between 1916 and 1919, then over a million by the 1920’s. This movement was called the “push and pull aspects of migration.”  A lot of blacks pushed out of the South because there weren’t any new advancements and the pull was the new opportunities that lied ahead. With the African American women moving up to the North for work, how much did that really affect the jobs of immigrant women? Was it a huge effect or a little because immigrants usually worked for lower wage?&lt;br /&gt;
-Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A couple of the accounts of domestic servitude in Modern American Women talk about having only “oral contracts.” Why is this? I thought by the late 19th Century people would hold written contracts. When I first read that I thought that oral contracts might be a positive thing for the servants because they could walk away from them with out series legal repercussions, but the more I think about it… maybe an oral contract is worse? In an oral contract the terms can change whenever the employer wants and the servant can’t really just walk away from it because they don’t have the money and resource to go anywhere else. Perhaps oral contracts were just another way to keep lower class (often black) women oppressed. – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To what extent was the North actually the “promise land” that poor southern black women thought it to be? It seems that domestic service was widespread, form South to North.  – Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The various stories about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire were all very heartbreaking, especially the one where the girl lost her fiance&amp;#039;.  Let&amp;#039;s face it, factory life for men and women in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a hellish existence in most cases.  However, one would have to acknowledge that it was in many cases worse for women due to their lack of power at that time.  They were more easily exploited than men; thus leading to all-female industries and factories in which men were the bosses and foremans and women were the production workers.  - Phil N.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yet again I found that the articles in MAW moved me more than any other articles. In particular &amp;quot;WOrking Women Write the Jewish Daily Forward&amp;quot; got to me. The first story made me angry because of the horrible treatment that she had to endure because of her need for the job. I don&amp;#039;t know if I would have been able to continue working in an area where the boss made unwelcome sexual advances. But even more so the 2nd story about the young girl whose bridegroom was killed in the Triangle Factory Fire touched me. Not only did she loose her love and have to deal with another man&amp;#039;s advances, but she lost him when he went in to save others. He had been safe but then put himself back into danger. This document just showed how hard these girls actually had it. -Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy reading the first hand accounts.  It makes everything thing seem that much more realistic.  I especially like the articles by women who were mot middle class white women.  I feel as though we hear their story so often and the rest are added as an after thought or left out completely.  It is nice to get a different view of how things were for others because they helped build this country too. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>328--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-02-07T03:55:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Cwueb5yr: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While reading the primary source documents of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Modern American Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I found it a bit disconcerting that the women were so similar to the women of today.  It is kind of a shame that history repeats itself so fully.  I suppose it is evidence that change is gradual and more of an evolution. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although it was an interesting study, Linda Gordon&amp;#039;s study &amp;quot;Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women&amp;#039;s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945&amp;quot; came very close to simply listing the differences between the two races of activists.  Her conclusions did not seem to have a lot of depth. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Justin Mattos on his comment about Linda Gordon&amp;#039;s essay.  I too felt that that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.  However, I do believe to have a better sense of what was happening, it is good to know that just because welfare groups existed, they didn&amp;#039;t all go after the same things.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It does seem like she just listed the differences between the two groups of reformers, however once I saw the tables in the back  I was impressed. Until I saw those tables it hadnt sunk in that Gordon actually went back and found real women activist and studied them. Maybe I am just not used to studying history but I thought that was pretty cool. After i saw those tables with the lists of actual women activists I looked at the reading in a whole different light. - Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also observed in the primary source documents of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Modern American Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that the stereotypes of women have only changed slightly today.  Women are still thought to be more fragile than men, and there is still a need to protect them from harm.  It has only been within the last decade that the idea of a working women has gained mainstream acceptance.  I wonder if this observation stems from the fact that the primary source documents that I read were from the perspective of educated women. --Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 14 of Unequal Sisters deals with the differences in welfare activism between African American and white women. Gordon points out that white women had more of an ability to work politically and seek donations from those who would be more able to help (i.e. congressional representatives or other political figures) while the African American women focused their activities around the community and church. She continues, to point out that white women activists focused more on charity and relief while black women sought to provide for more universal needs such as education and health. If there were poor or unfortunate people in both groups (black and white), why is it that white women activists focused on particular people while black women activists focused on reform that is more general? Did societal norms during this time make it more inappropriate to provide individual charity to black women? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read “Speaking out Against Lynching” by Ida B. Wells. She discusses the harsh punishments that African Americans were subjected to due to the stereotypes that white men and women held. On p age 15 she states, “With the Southern white man, any misalliance existing between a white woman and a colored man is a sufficient foundation for the charge of rape. The southern white man says that it is impossible for a voluntary alliance to exist between a white woman and a colored man, and therefore, the fact of an alliance is a proof of force.” Given this, would it also be considered rape if it were a black woman and a white man? Moreover, who would be at fault, would it be the man forcing himself onto the woman, or the woman because she is black? --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought the reading by Wells was interesting.  She only discusses the accusations that black men were raping white women.  She never mentions black women being raped.  Was it just something that they didn&amp;#039;t talk about or something that they just took as a fact of life during those times? I thought it interesting that discussing how black men were falsely accused of rape and lynched even when it was well known at the time that it was a concentual relationship, but then went on to say that even when the white man left for war he left the white women to be protected by the black men.  So why all of a sudden is the lynching of black men on the rise? Was it because now they were free and more like competition to the whites than they had been before?~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Mary Beth, I do think that to some extent the lynching of black was due to competition, but also due to fear. Before the African Americans were free, white men had never considered them to be a threat. When they left home they trusted that they would return with their home and family in the same state. It never crossed their minds that it would be possible for their family to be in danger because there had never been any reason to mistrust. Wells states on page 15 that &amp;quot;the world has accepted the story that the Negro is a monster which the Southern white man has painted him.&amp;quot; With this image that is created, when the African Americans are free, the white men thus see it as the release of &amp;quot;a monster&amp;quot; and they no longer feel safe and trustworthy as they did before, when &amp;quot;the monster&amp;quot; was contained. --Jessica Kilday&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the reading on Wells interesting. In response to Mary Beth&amp;#039;s point about the black women not officially being raped I believe it has some background in the idea that black women were naturally more passionate (less pure) than white women and therefore couldn&amp;#039;t be raped because they would still be willing to have that relationship. I also agree with Jessica in that i think the lynching increased because there was a greater amount of fear now about the black community being free and the white community felt the need to use fear to control them. Likewise, in the South (where lynching was common) it might have been a way for the white community to maintain control and limit the amount of change that took place despite slavery being over. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Jessica&amp;#039;s question, I think that white women were able to focus more on specific groups, because unlike black women, white women just had to focus on issues of sexual inequality whereas black women had the issues of sexual AND racial inequality going against them, as well as establishing themselves in a newly free world. Chapter 14 of Unequal Sister does highlight that the two major focus point for black women groups was education and health care. These were issues that obviously had to be taken care of after slavery because the whites weren&amp;#039;t going to provide it fully for them (yes, a lot of groups DID help) but they knew they had to rely on themselves(as the article shows) to fully develop and not remain stagnant and looked down upon by the white community.- Emely Amaya.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found in interesting in Gordon&amp;#039;s piece on Welfare that she notes one specific difference.  She states that the white groups that were looking for reform  were looking at people &amp;quot;other&amp;quot; than themselves. They saw themselves as helping people less fortunate than themselves but still with a &amp;quot;moral&amp;quot; aspect between who was the &amp;quot;worthy and the unworthy poor&amp;quot; (pg 225). In contrast the black groups focused on middle class and poor blacks.  The black groups also focused more on education and health instead of charitys like the whites.  ~~Mary Beth Conrad&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Modern American Women&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I do agree with my classmates on how the perception of women has not changed drastically. It is now socially acceptable for a women to go off into the business world and make a name for herself. Even jobs such a teacher and a nurse that were considered women&amp;#039;s work are still dominated today by women. Since I am an education major I go into a lot of elementary schools and the staff is female dominated. I think it is wrong that today where anyone can be anything, people still stereotype jobs and classify things as mens work or females work. This eve goes beyond the adults of the nation. We start these stereotypes early in children&amp;#039;s lives. I have always remembered when I was younger and would go to Mc Donalds they would ask &amp;quot;would you like a girl toy or a boy toy?&amp;quot;  Sometimes yeah I wanted the princess toy but other times I also wanted the hot wheels car. It is so disturbing to know that we are still dealing with this issue. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the article on Women&amp;#039;s welfare activism,I too felt that she really just listed the differences and similarities without any real conclusion.However on the second page of the article, it talks about the differences of how white and black women were raising money. It says oh of course women raise money but they were also so busy attending White House conferences and correspondence with Supreme Court Justices and the black women it just states  they organized bake sales, rummage sales and church dinners. I guess after reading this my biggest pet peeve is that yes white women did have more power in society. However, its not like there were no black women doing the same things. I just don&amp;#039;t like how these women are talked down, for what they had their time was just as well spent as a white women. This really just made me feel that white women were more interested in their social lives or making them selves look better and black women worked as a team, they worked for the well being of everyone. -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading Chapter 14, I began to think about the possibly that the difference between the perspective of white women and black women on the poor that they helped was a matter of progression or evolution.  As the black women received more power, it seemed that they became more like the white women and began to explicitly look down on the poorer black social classes.  I saw this occurrence when the author talked about the views of the black poor by educated black women being the same as white women.--Justin Mattos&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading MAW, I came across an exert from Ida B. Wells, which in truth makes sense, but I didn&amp;#039;t expect to see exert from something I have read in the past.  There piece of the article here touched me almost as much as it touched me then.  The black women were not treated equally in any light, and were not considered to be able to be &amp;#039;raped&amp;#039; because they were not pure and pious like the white women.  Part of that comes through in the last paragraph of the exert.  It makes me mad to think that people once thought like this, but what is even more scary is some people still do.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading a bit more in the Modern American Women book, I find myself getting emotionally involved with the information presented.  I felt anger towards the father who was treating his daughter like a sack of trash in &amp;quot;An immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World.&amp;quot;  I felt heartbroke when he slapped her because she was leaving.  At the same time I know this happened a lot towards women... and it breaks my heart to know what some women had to go through.  I&amp;#039;ve been lucky to have a father who was supportive in everything I chose and only opposed my decisions when they were bad decisions.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Ashley since I was also touched by some of the readings in Modern American Women. I also was upset at the way the young girl was treated by her father in &amp;quot;An Immigrant Daughter Awakens to the Possibilities of the New World&amp;quot;. I always knew parents treated their daughters in such a harsh way at times, but it was very hard to see how harshly she was treated. I have to say if I was in her position I also would have left home. Though I did enjoy how she points out that she got in so much trouble for taking the girls word that they would get the 2 cents she owed when she says her dad had given away a lot more merchandise without any payment at all. - Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bertha Palmer&amp;#039;s speech at the opening of the Women&amp;#039;s Building was so progressive except for the part where she says: &amp;quot;It willing acknowledges that the industries, arts, and commerce of the world have been for centuries in the hands of men who have carefully trained themselves for the responsibilities devolving upon them, and who have, consequently, without question, contributed vastly more than women to the valuable thought, research, invention, science, art and literature, which have become the rich heritage of the human race.&amp;quot; Does she actually believe this? Or is she catering to what the public will most except in order to support her movement? - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Anzia Yeziercka&amp;#039;s (Immigrant Daughter) story very interesting as far as the existance of two worlds (old/new) for young immigrant women. I feel like today American woman still struggle with existing in between the Old and the New world. It is amazing how sometimes problems never get solved they just evolve. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Harris seemed incredible against the predominant constructs of gender and the entire system of change in America. Clearly she has struggled greatly in her lifetime and criticized women&amp;#039;s methods of change... yet she seems to offer now feasibly alternative route. - Cat Debelius&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference between the white activism and the black activism discussed in Unequal Sisters was not very surprising to me.  I figured that since black women were also fighting for civil rights their fight would be stronger.  They seemed to have the largest networks of people working toward the cause.  They held fundraising fuctions to help raise the money needed to fund their programs. It is easy to understand how these women bonded in the way that they did.  The bond that these women grew amongst themselves was largely due to the having to rely on eachother so much. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye about how it wasn&amp;#039;t surprising about the differences between black and white activism.  The black women had so much more to fight for, and not only that but how education was their most important area of activism instead of voting like for the white women.-- Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the vast number of organizations that were formed as a result of the fundraising efforts of activist women.  I was even more shocked to find the cost of maintaining these organizations and that these women were able to raise the money needed. ---Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting to learn how educated these women were. I knew some women were getting degrees but not this many and not African Americans. I also thought it was interesting to see how important, influential, or rich the parents of these women were even the African American women had wealthy parents. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I found intersting was the view these women had about the role of women. I would have thought that since these women were out in the work force trying to bring about change they would have supported other women in the work place but they don&amp;#039;t. It also was a surprise to learn about how many of the women were single, divorced, widowed, married, or living with a &amp;quot;partner.&amp;quot; The interacting and sense of community created amoung these women is amazing. -- Christine Wuebker&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It surprises me that black women started to develop social classes just as the white women. Black women who started to gain power, like the power whites had, these black women started to treat the poor and less fortunate black women like a low class. This really bothers me because after everything these women have been through you would except them to try to help each other out, but instead they forget about them and treat them as peasants. What my question is, are these higher powered black women doing this because they are  trying to be whiter? Do they care more about upper class societies views on them? -- Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was also surprised on how the black women started a social class just like the white women, but to try and answer your question(s) Amanda, I don&amp;#039;t think they were trying to be whiter but maybe instead were so tired of the white social class they were instead competing now against them on what race was better as well as trying to gain the much wanted respect from white society they have wanted for so long. --Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going off of what both Amanda and Michelle said, I think we have to keep in mind that there was a social ideal that all women had to try to live up to.  The domestic of separate spheres was still alive and well and I feel like some black women felt that they had to adhere to that doctrine in order to make some headway in the world.  Now, I&amp;#039;m not saying that&amp;#039;s how all black women felt or acted, but I&amp;#039;m sure it played some sort of part.  But what upsets me the most, and it&amp;#039;s talked about in Anna Cooper&amp;#039;s piece, &amp;quot;Black Women Plan to Lead Their Race,&amp;quot; is that black women were subjected to the bottom of the social hierarchy on two accounts: race AND gender.  No matter which way they tried to advance, they always had someone trying to hold them back. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Cat and the Anzia Yeziercka&amp;#039;s (Immigrant Daughter)piece. Women are stuck dealing with the old and the new world. The problem with todays society is that only some people truly believe in the modern day women however, a good amount of people are so stuck in the past. Its not fair how women have to fight for so much when people need to stop living in the past. --Amanda Taub&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with many other posts about the emotional involvement MAW commands of its readers, I found that &amp;quot;Margaret Sanger&amp;#039;s Epiphany over Birth Control&amp;quot; opened my eyes to the desperate and difficult position of being a women with no control over her own body. Still today there are few practical birth control methods for the women that need it most. The pill and other hormonal methods are not cheap and condoms primarily place responsiblity on the male partner. It was heart-breaking to hear &amp;quot;a baby born dead, great relief - the death of an older child, sorrow but again relief&amp;quot; (86) as it must have been for Sanger. Sanger was not on a crusade to put a stop to child birth or to change the understanding that sex was for procreation, but rather to bring peace of mind to the women that so desperatly needed it. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I also was very touched by &amp;quot;Margaret Sanger&amp;#039;s Epiphany over Birth Control&amp;quot;. I knew that women had been attempting ways to control the number of children they had for a very long time but I had no idea that someone could self induce an abortion (especially since i really don&amp;#039;t know how that works). I also found it so shocking that even married women didn&amp;#039;t want to put faith in their husbands desire not to have any more children even though it would reduce the stress on his life and make paying bills easier. I would have thought they would also be glad to have less children to take care of. -Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to your comment Elizabeth, I&amp;#039;m not so sure it was the fact that they would have less children to take care of so much as the women would be in control of their own bodies and be making family altering decisions.  Women were supposed to obey their husbands and if they took a stand and decided that they were going to prevent their family from increasing, then the husband would, in essence, lose a bit of power over his wife.  I think that was what terrified them more than anything else.  Some men actually were thrilled that their wives were looking into birth control. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After taking History of Sexuality last semester and discussing Margaret Sanger I was not at all surprised with the &amp;quot;Margaret Sanger&amp;#039;s Epihany over Birth Control.&amp;quot;  It was and still is hard to be a women when it comes to birth control.  Women today are far better off than the women of Margaret Sanger&amp;#039;s time.  It is so much easier for women to obtain birth control today then ever before. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very suprised to learn when reading Edith Eudora Ammons&amp;#039; piece about life as a female homesteader that women were more successful in staying with their claims by 6%. As she recalled being driven further and further into the unsettled land I can only imagine how disconnecting and daunting that ride must have been. The Ammons sister&amp;#039;s hard work is clear proof of a way in which American women were able to take a different route and break the social expectations. After reading about the women who went west with their husbands or in order to find a husband in the past weeks, it was very uplifting to read about the other opportunities the west had for women. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought &amp;quot;Wages for Housework&amp;quot; was the best essay, it made me laugh. I thought it was very interesting on how she capitalized certain sentences in order to show her frustration and to get her point across.  I also thought this essay sounded very much like a modern day women and her frustration with being a house wife and how it is not looked at as being a job, because a lot more than just cleaning and cooking goes into taking care of a house and family. --Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Nellie Bly&amp;#039;s essay she says, &amp;quot;I had such a strong belief in the world&amp;#039;s greeting me as I greeted it, that I refused to arm myself. I knew if my conduct was proper I should always find men ready to protect me,...&amp;quot; (pg6-7) She is amazing in the fact that she was going to attempt to fly around the world and the fact that she was a women was going to make this awesome, but in this quote she seems completely oblivious to the real world, and that not everyone you meet is going to like you, aswell as thinking any man would be willing to protect her.  Its like she ready to be considered equal to man by doing this great thing but yet still depend on them for protection. --Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gordon&amp;#039;s essay in US as Kellye mentions as well as I have responded to her comment above about not being suprised about the differences in white and black women activism, but my question is why could women in general, black and white just come together and be the first ones to over look race and fight the cause of womens rights together? I think if they could have done that would of had a more dominate impact in getting what and where they wanted to be.--Michelle Mardeusz&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
was also very surprised by Edith Eudora Ammon&amp;#039;s piece, but mainly that while they met some resistance in their journey west, they did not seem to get mistreated nearly has much as I would have expected. I would have thought that as two women going west to homestead they would have gotten scoffed at yet I don&amp;#039;t recall this being mentioned in the recounting. Is this because it didn&amp;#039;t happen or because they chose to ignore it?- Elizabeth Frank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Unequal Sisters reading by Linda Gordon I found very interesting the concept of social motherhood among the black women&amp;#039;s welfare reform groups. These women were mostly single and were not biological mothers yet the main issues they focused on were familial in nature. I do not necessarily think that this indicates the selfless mindset of these women, but rather points to how strongly the doctrine of seperate spheres and the middle classs status quo, affected everyones&amp;#039; decisions during this time period. - Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another point worth mentioning from Gordon&amp;#039;s essay was how incredibly interdependent these  women were on each other. Ths interdependnce born out of necessity to survive eventually evolved into a powerful social and even political network. Some of these women&amp;#039;s groups had real political power; distributing tax money etc. However, for a woman to be truly powerful within these groups she had to have connections to a powerful man, her husband, or father usually as is the case with Brandeis and Beyer. --- Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The speech by Palmer in Modern American Women brought up an excellent point. This was the point that most of the people in power equate life for everyone to what their own life is like. So to the men in power at the time, opening the workforce up to women seemed unnatural, dangerous, and threatening. However, this was because they were thinking about their own wives and daughters entering the workforce, which neither the men or most likely the women would have wanted, seeing as they come from upper class families. However, to the less fortunate, opening the workforce ot women was essential. These women needed to work in order to survive, alot of them did not have husbands who could or would support them. I think that this is still a mistake we all make today, not just the politicians, we fail to put ourselves in other peoples&amp;#039; shoes. - Landon Davis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;The Fair Women, Chicago, 1893&amp;quot; in Modern American Women, I found it interesting how Bertha Palmer is obviously struggling with the conflict between the idealized woman and the reality that many women face. At one point she says that it is the board&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;belief that every woman, who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studios.&amp;quot; And then a few sentences later she talks about how it is only the favored class that can live in these conditions and that the majority of women are living under much poorer conditions. In a way, it seems as though she is still holding those ideals of women, but recognizing that most women cannot live up to them. I guess I&amp;#039;m just wondering how that differs from the rest of the people who simply hold those ideals, and is it even any better to recognize that the majority of women can&amp;#039;t live up to the ideals but still hold them anyways? --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading &amp;quot;Speaking Out Against Lynching&amp;quot; in Modern American Women, the thing that struck me most is the obvious double standard that exists between sexual relations that happen between a black man and a white woman in comparison to those that exist between a white man and a black woman. I know that I may be looking at this from a present perspective, but it just strikes me that it is considered rape for a black man to have sex with a white woman, but nothing is said when a white man has sex with a black woman (which happened very often). I think that this double standard brings up issues with both race and gender. It brings up issues with gender because it indicates that white women are incapable of consenting to sexual interactions with a black man (but men can consent to sexual relations with a black woman). And it brings up issues of race because of the differential treatment between the races, and thinking about the likeliness that black women have of being raped. --Katie Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought &amp;quot;Wages for Housework&amp;quot; was a clever and humorous article. Conger-Kaneko seemed to denounce traditional women use her writing style. I thought it was very interesting, though not valid in every case, that she compared women&amp;#039;s roles to those of slaves. I would imagine this would be a very persuasive arguement to move women towards equal rights after being compared to the slaves who had been freed for decades. I cannot imagine how women seeking to stay in their tradtional roles would argue against Conger-Kaneko&amp;#039;s points? Although I imagine they were probably not interested in reading Progressive Woman. -- Meredith Bojarski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After having read some of the above comments about Ida B. Wells&amp;#039; essay, I thought more about her argument and the social and political climate during the time of lynching. I do agree with Jessica that it was somewhat out of fear because the black men were no longer under the control of the white masters. Lynching was one of the ways they could exhibit their control over this sector of society. It obviously didn&amp;#039;t have to do with whether black men were actually raping white women; for white men, it was about controlling that sector of society. In response to Mary Beth&amp;#039;s comment about Wells&amp;#039; essay, the viewpoint of many white Southern men was not that they were raping black women. It was only their superiority over the inferior race, black women being the most inferior because they were black and women. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The discussion about moving up by way of housework and domestic services was brought up in the readings, and I believe that it ties in very well with what we&amp;#039;ve learned about in class.  You can see the same sort of thing happening with the end of the Civil War, and clerical work.  Like we discussed, women took clerical positions while men were away fighting, but soon after the war ended, those who kept their jobs soon learned that their jobs had become &amp;quot;secretarial.&amp;quot;  Those who once had the opportunity to move up in the business world while they were clerks soon found themselves stuck in the same place since secretarial work didn&amp;#039;t provide much opportunity to elevate.  But I agree, the question is, who decides what makes a position honorable? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve decided that Nellie Bly is my new hero.  The way she stood up to her boss and threatened to go to another paper if she wasn&amp;#039;t allowed to &amp;quot;travel the world in 80 days&amp;quot; was incredible, especially for a woman of her time.  What&amp;#039;s even more interesting is how some of the stereotypes she faced still plague women today.  For one, she&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;too delicate&amp;quot; since she&amp;#039;s a woman and would need protection.  Second, her boss was concerned she&amp;#039;d have too much luggage, and if you think about women today (I know I, myself, am guilty of this) they pack much more than necessary.  She even said herself, &amp;quot;Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life.&amp;quot;  It&amp;#039;s just interesting to see the correlation and then quite impressive to see how she overcame gender stereotypes to beat &amp;quot;the man&amp;quot; at his own game.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved that the excerpt about bicycle riding by Frances Willard was included in the chapter. It&amp;#039;s simplicity had the strongest message of encouragement for women to leave behind their usual constraints and go out into the world, to take control of their lives. She points out that for too long women have been constrained by their clothing and appearance. Willard asks women to take uncomplicated modern inventions and free themselves. My favorite quote from the piece was, &amp;quot;They that know nothing fear nothing.&amp;quot; (p.18) It was a phrase that offered such quiet strength for the women of that time and even to women now. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know a few other of my classmates have commented on it, but I felt that I should also comment on the birth control article too.  I was also amazed at some of the ways women tried to have abortions.  I have to agree though with Kelly that birth control was a way men would lose power over women, but I don&amp;#039;t understand why the men wanted to have so many children to try to provide for in his home.  Why not use condoms or pull out?  Were the men so uncaring they ignored the pain of the female they married and the hunger of their children?  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Ashley W., I don&amp;#039;t think the men of that time really thought about the pain of the female in child birth,etc.  Just from researching my family, I found that my grandfathers father had 18 children from 2 different wives (the first wife died in childbirth) and birth control in that family was never an option. My grandfather is the youngest and was born in 1923.  He told me that his father believed that the more children you had the better off you were because you had more people to work in the fields at harvest time and they felt you could have more livestock because there were more people to share the work.  My grandfathers family was totally self sufficient and he says they barely noticed the depression because they were self sufficient.  I think maybe a lot of men had the same mindset and didn&amp;#039;t see their wives as &amp;quot;suffering&amp;quot; because it was the way they survived. That of course is a rural example I don&amp;#039;t know if it would have been the same in the cities but I am sure it was somewhat different.~~MaryBeth C&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on chapter 14, about black and white women’s vision of welfare activism, the book states that white women mostly helped out with political work and donations. Black women were more interested in helping there community and their churches. Could this be because black women saw other people as one class level and will help anyone, while white women will help out the upper class with politics to gain more women’s rights? &lt;br /&gt;
–Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Landon about how women were successful in gaining political power, but how far did that power get you? Even today I feel like women are still seen as the only way of gaining power is by having a strong male influence in the business beside you. &lt;br /&gt;
–Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Modern American Women” book, the documents of Jane Addams were very interesting. Jane Addams was unsure of what she wanted to do after college. Most women just get married and have children. She wanted to figure out a way to help people especially women by restoring balance in activities that were along the traditional lines. In 1889 Addams created the Hull House; a place where she developed social services and recreational programs to help the less fortune. If Addams was another woman to break down doors for more opportunities for other women why didn’t women’s ways of work life change? Also this shows that women do not have to get married right after college. &lt;br /&gt;
-Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The Feminist Challenge to the Privatized Home&amp;quot; was an interesting perspective on the home. Instead of telling women they could do it all, she asks women to consider working together with the family and other women to help them combine work and home. It seems so different from the feminist perspective that prevails today where women can do it all: home, work, and family. --Kendall Haring&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Modern American Women&amp;quot; I found this quote &amp;quot;We feel therefore, obliged to state our believe that every woman who is presiding over a happy home, is fulfilling her highest and truest function, and could not be lured from it by temptations offered by factories or studies.&amp;quot; All I have to say to this is wow have times changed since this was written. Women are making it a priority to be an asset to the workforce. --- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read about Alice Hamilton and how she got a medical degree from the University of MIchigan. (I am biased after growing up in Ann Arbor!) I thought it was interesting to read about her train of thought as to why a medical degree. She pursued medicine not because of an interest but because she knew she could excel in it even as a woman. --- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this quote powerful and couldn&amp;#039;t not post it. &amp;quot;We may convince the world that ability is not a matter of sex.&amp;quot; --- Rose Ferguson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed from these reading is that these women are all they same. They all come from essentially the same place. They are women who are well educated, upper-middle class, and single or married later in life. Where are the accounts of the poorer working class women? -- Christine Wuebker&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Cwueb5yr</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 />