Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=EbethelMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T18:24:54ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-21T02:54:07Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Bob McDonnell was criticized a lot on the blogs about his interpretation of Virginia's "shared history". Some said that he was leaving out those who were not Confederates, those that left to form West Virginia, and slaves. Others argued that Governor McDonnell was just issuing a proclamation about Virginia Confederate History month in April and his proclamations should not scrutinized. What are your opinions? -avanness <br />
<br />
I think it would be neat to have an event that related to the memory of the Civil War either in a more state-run commemoration or at the University. Maybe something like an open forum or discussion, that could include academic scholars, where the average public could comment on the way they have remembered the Civil War or their opinions on its memory. It could even be something like a survey that people would fill out just to get an idea about how historians, history teachers, Civil War buffs, or people who may not be so interested in the Civil War think about it today. -avanness<br />
<br />
I noticed that the proclamation left out West Virginia leaving Virginia during the Civil War. Do you think that this is an important event that should be included in the Civil War History Month of Virginia? Or do you think that it does not fit into the larger aspect of Civil War history of Virginia? -MK<br />
<br />
I think that it would be really neat to interview people all of ages to see how people today think about, understand, and commemorate the Civil War. I think it would be really interesting to see how many people are Civil War "buffs" and how other people think about or understand the Civil War. Maybe turning these interviews into some kind of documentary would be the best format to present it. -MK<br />
<br />
Something that really struck me from McDonnell's proclamation was when he stated that after the Confederacy surrendered, they returned home to their families in peace. He definitely glosses over some of the major issues of the war (and reconstruction) and presents a simplistic version, as many of the CW blogs criticized him for. Also, while reading through some of the reactions to the proclamation, there were a lot of great points raised, especially in the comments. On Robert Moore's blog, (http://cenantua.wordpress.com), he makes the distinction between heritage over history and how passion can sometimes get the best of people. Do you think that this issue of heritage and history is going to impact the way in which states approach the sesquicentennial? Is there anyway to present a more complicated, rather than simplistic view of the war without raising concerns from groups like the NAACP who had issues in 2000 with Gov. Gilmore's proclamation? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I like things that are more interactive and get people involved. I think if there was some way to create some Civil War 'thing' (Im hesitant to use the word "event") that was both educational and interactive, people may be attracted to it. I think its important to get people of all ages involved which is why I really like MK's idea because I think it is good to get an idea of what all types of people think about the war. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On the Old Virginia blog, as well as in the comments sections of a couple other ones, people complained that historians wanted McDonnell to be "PC." But political correctness often protects the memory of the Confederacy, either by portraying Southerners as innocents oblivious to the evils of slavery and as having been mobilized mostly in response to a Northern invasion, or by implying that the cause of the war is still an open debate. So what are people talking about when they complain about political correctness? What version of political correctness do they mean, and why do they phrase it that way? -GStan.<br />
<br />
Finding a "good" way to commemorate the Civil War may not be the way to attract people to an event. If you hold a conference, very few will come or care. If the state financed some kind of elaborate reenactment, it would probably be inaccurate or offensive or both, but there would be a better chance of attracting people who would pay for tickets, hotels, etc. -GStan.<br />
<br />
Alright: McDonnell's first proclamation sounds like it was written by the UDC, and it was real wrong, but it it also sounds like it's something somebody would want to celebrate. The most recent one is a little more complicated, a little more correct, but it sounds just a little schizophrenic. I guess I think that maybe something like the history of the Confederacy is not the kind of thing a politician can use to promote tourism. Not without being negligent. --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-19T01:37:30Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory as a subject and also its evolution out of the democratized history of the 1960s. Do you agree that the study of historical memory serves in part to assign sort of a "watchdog" role to the trained historian over the proliferation of individual perceptions and stories? Do you see it as a clear evolution of the "bottom-up" history from the 1960s? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
What is the importance and influence of monuments and other physical objects in the League of the South and the Southern Party? -avanness <br />
<br />
Women were barred from the "ranks of academic historians" yet they could write sentimental fiction that many men were incapable or unable to write. What impact do you think sentimental fiction about the Civil War that was written by women had on people and the process of remembering the war? -avanness<br />
<br />
Is there a suggestion for a commemoration that Gilmore could have made that would have made everyone happy? What function does making anything like a "Confederate History Month" or a "Proclamation Honoring all Virginians..." serve? Does it serve any real function other than answering the requests of a certain group? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-18T23:28:24Z<p>Ebethel: New page: The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory a...</p>
<hr />
<div>The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory as a subject and also its evolution out of the democratized history of the 1960s. Do you agree that the study of historical memory serves in part to assign sort of a "watchdog" role to the trained historian over the proliferation of individual perceptions and stories? Do you see it as a clear evolution of the "bottom-up" history from the 1960s? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-12T09:47:17Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the posts I came across from the cwmemory.com/archives website was from the "Teaching" category. The author of the site basically talked about one of his students who is creating a historical fiction story and wanted to use some primary sources. A comment was made about the post that argued how historical fiction novels can be such good teaching tools; they allow students to relate to the character and also teaches them facts. Do you see any negative aspects of using historical fiction to teach in school or to teach children about the past (e.g. the Civil War)? -avanness<br />
<br />
Another post from the cwmemory.com/archives section under "Slavery" was interesting. The post was about a black Confederate general, Randall Lee Gibson. He, however, did not support his African American heritage, nor did he even know about it until someone brought it to his attention. He definitely seemed like he was a racist; in that he basically supported lynching and said that the African American race was the most degrading race. I think Gibson's story does make it a little questionable as to whether or not he was anhttp://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday&action=edit actual black general or not since he didn't see himself as black nor did the town. Do you think someone who does not define themselves as African American and even is discriminatory against the race should be seen as a black Confederate general or should the he only be given the title "Confederate general"? -avanness<br />
<br />
This site (http://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/) was pretty interesting. I read a piece on Salem Church and the pictures were cool to see since now today the area looks nothing like it did in the early 20th century. The area is currently surrounded by a residential area and plenty of business. What does these new, modern landscapes take away from the memory of the Civil War? Is it okay to have battlefields and such surrounded by modernity? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I read a piece on cwmemory.com about Lincoln and the mythology that comes with him. In his post, he talks about an interview with Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods (and has the video, too) where they list various arguments against Lincoln. He criticizes them for not being aware of the scholarship. This seems to be a reoccurring problem that comes with popular histories (and opinions). How important is it that people are aware of the scholarly literature on a topic (even if they are not a historian nor have the training)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On cwmemory.com, I read the post about the governor's confederate history month proclamation. I thought he made an interesting point in that the proclamation encourages people to view Virginia's Civil War history from a national perspective, instead of a Virginia-centered perspective. This would mean that slavery was a national problem, not just a Virginian one and that African Americans from VA who fought in the war defeated slavery with the help of the federal government. I disagreed with the proclamation when it was issued, but the author does make some interesting points about its wording. - Angie<br />
<br />
For today's blog post I read an interesting blog concerning Union Black soldiers. Numerous books written about Union soldiers neglects to mention black Union soldiers that participated in the Union war effort, despite them contributing greatly after 1863. Why do you think the contributions by African Americans are also ignored in the commemoration of Union soldiers? -Nick<br />
<br />
I really liked the graffiti section of the npsfrsp blog site mostly because we tend to think of graffiti as a modern sort of delinquency. These soldiers in Falmouth actually tagged different buildings where they were staying by either carving or making a stencil. It seems weird to compare Civil War soldiers with today's graffiti artists but I guess for both of them, its their way of being remembered or leaving something behind. - Angie<br />
<br />
I decided to look at the category "Civil war memory class" on cwmemory.com. In this section, Kevin Levin discusses his thoughts regarding his class form, content, and the general reactions of the students in his high school civil war memory class. In several posts, Levin seems to be trying to demonstrate that the classroom setting is less polemic than he expected. The comments to nearly all his posts reflect this, and it seemed to be a friendly environment to discuss civil war memory. That was my perception until I arrived at his post, <br />
"States Rights v. Slavery: No discernible difference." In the post, he discusses the backgrounds of his students and how their origins do not seem to reflect a bias in civil war education. In that, he has students from the North that were taught a secessionist point of view, and students from the south who were taught that the war was about slavery. He concludes that the difference of approach is based on the teacher and not the area. Someone reacted to his post in the most ridiculous manner. He had apparently misinterpreted this post to be a defense of the secessionist argument and went on a rant about slavery as the cause. What was fascinating about his posts, was that I had never heard such an extreme and ludicrous take on the slavery argument. This guy kept saying that it's time the truth was taught, and I'm sorry for including such a long quote of this comment but it is so ridiculous that I have to include it here:<br />
"I have watched my kid’s history books over the years (four kids, years apart) and noticed how pathetically poliltically correct they all are. Some even claim the South was trying to free the slaves, in time. None, not one, tell the basic truth that the war camem about because the South’s insane demands for the spread of slavery AGAINST the will of the people. Its not only not mentioned in your text books, various bits of BS are there instead. If you can’t teach the truth — because it’s too awful — don’t teach anything. Don’t teach utter nonsense. I don’t expect grade school children, many who are students at schools named after Robert E Lee, to learn that Lee tortured 13 year old children, and sold their infants, and kept a Hunting List of slave girls, in his own handwriting. I don’t expect them to learn in grade school that Lee was obsessed with the capture of one young girl, and paid six times the normal bounty for her, and then had her tortured, and then sold her baby.<br />
You could wait till high school to teach them these awful truths. But at some point, they should learn. Learn that the Southern leaders insisted God ordained not only slavery, but the torture to DEATH of slave women, and that God ordained even the sexual obedience of slave women to their master." Apparently this guy was blocked from posting to the site after more crazy comments following this one. - aaskins<br />
<br />
There are quite a few articles on Levin's site about the black Confederate soldier myth. It is quite prevalent, and there are a suprisingly large number of groups propagating it. As is pointed out by at least one of the articles, and as can be attested to by some of what we have read this semester, this version of the myth is somewhat recent. It used to be that Lost Causers would talk about the faithful slave attending his master before or after battle; it is only more recently that it became about the brave black soldier going into battle alongside his fellow Southerners. Why the change? And is it progress that blacks have risen within this myth at all? -GStan.<br />
<br />
On the nps website, I looked at the category regarding images of destruction in Fredericksburg. Some of the photographs are quite chilling, especially when I realized that these are sites I drive by everyday. They are unrecognizable. It almost seems as though by restoring these houses and buildings, we have erased a major piece of Civil War memory.- aaskins<br />
<br />
I was very interested in the post about the Stonewall Jackson shrine. It discusses if the Stonewall Jackson shrine should have a different name. Do you think the Stonewall Jackson shrine should be renamed and if it should be renamed what should it be renamed to?- Nick<br />
<br />
Nick, when I first started there, I asked about that, because I too was curious about the choice of wording. I was told that "shrine" is an early 20th century term for an exhibit or museum. I can't count the number of folks who walked in and asked about it, and I'm not entirely convinced that that is a proper explanation of the origin of the term. What does everyone else think? How much stake should we put in that explanation?- DR<br />
<br />
Given the recent textbook debates regarding the number of black Confederates under Stonewall Jackson, I thought it was very interesting to see the Prince William County tourist handbook with a young African American dressed in gray. Did anyone else go back to this article? What did you think? DR<br />
<br />
Was anybody else surprised at the amount of knowledge that was expressed in the comments? I know that their were plenty of crazy people making comments but the majority of people that took the time to write comments wrote them concisely and with plenty of historical fact to back up their statements. These guys are not idiots, they know their stuff. Logan T <br />
<br />
I liked the comments that centered on the debate on West Virginia breaking away from Virginia during the war and if this should be mentioned in the Governors proclamation. One guy brought up the fact that many Southern fire eaters supported the concept of States Rights and nullification but at the same supported the fugtive Slave Law which was a federal law that goes against state rights. How much of these types of arguments are missed in the memory of the war? Why do we forget that politicians 150 years are really no different than ones today? Politicians say one thing and do another. Logan T<br />
<br />
One of the posts I read involved the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the civil war, and also that of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, specifically the lack of commemoration on the part of the national govt. I hadn't thought about it until I read this article but despite the fact that I've heard much about the 150th anniversary of the civil war in our class, I have heard little to nothing about it anywhere else. It's also interesting that they drew the connection between these two anniversaries occurring together much like the 100th year anniversary of the civil war coincided with our nations bicentennial. - AJ <br />
<br />
The civil war memory site is one that I came across many times when looking for a blog post, I never actually took the time to really look at it much beyond the first page because I was too busy on my quest for each weeks post however. Like Logan mentioned though the comments and posts on this site are well thought out and backed up, it's remarkable that I didn't think to browse over these posts for ideas or simply to learn more. - AJ<br />
<br />
I focused my attention to the religion category when looking over the "memoryblog". There really aren't many posts about that topic on the course blog in the resources and we haven't discussed the topic much in class. Levin makes several good points about religion on his posts that are clearly reflected in other discussions we've had even if they didn't have to do with religion directly. I think religion has particular importance in the memory of the war more so than during the war. During the war no one knew the outcome and so they just prayed for a victory. But after the loss for the South, I'm sure they questioned the results and how God played a part in it. I think religion has a lot to do with understanding an event after it's occurred and it would be an interesting area to focus on. In particular, Levin discusses the idea of the war being "punishment" for slavery. It would be interesting to look into that further. -Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
I looked at the "Southern History" category on Civil War Memory and one of the most prevalent themes is that of black Confederate soldiers. One author, Ann Dewitt, in particular, has work that appears repeatedly in websites about black Confederate soldiers, but she is a writer of historical fiction (and, for some reason, it sounds like her fiction centers primarily on black Confederate characters?). In a separate article titled "Who is Ann Dewitt?" Levin tries to discover more about this writer and can find relatively little except that she was working on getting her website (blackconfederates.com) up as a comprehensive teaching tool for teachers. This whole string of articles has some good consideration of responsibility on the internet, the integrity of presenting ostensibly educational sources online. --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-06T23:31:08Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>One theme that we kind of keep coming back to and that i think Horwitz's description of Stone Mountain represents, is the difficulty in balancing political correctness with existing symbols of Confederate pride. Is there a way to balance a fair and modern approach to the history of the south while avoiding socially incendiary messages - and still end up with something meaningful? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 312 Horwitz discusses that when he visited Georgia he expected to see reduced homes with charred chimneys, but once again he learned that much of what he had absorbed of the Civil War was more mythic than factual. If Sherman's march to the sea was more mythic than factual in regards to the destruction committed against the Confederate countryside, why do southerners still view Sherman one of if not the biggest Northern villains of the Civil War? What has taken place currently in Civil War memory that make southerners despite Sherman even more today than the did during the Civil Wars?-Nick<br />
<br />
As Horwitz puts it on page 317 why is the fate of prisoner of wars arguably the most neglected aspect of the Civil War? Over 400,000 men were captured during the war and thousands died of diseases due to harsh conditions at prison camps such as Andersonville.Is it because people want to remember simply neglect the pain and suffering that the prison camps symbolized and spend more of their attention on studying aspects of the war that is not as dark and upsetting?- Nick<br />
<br />
How has Montgomery handled its historical treatment of both the Confederacy and Civil Rights? Is it doing something better than other southern towns? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-06T20:13:55Z<p>Ebethel: New page: One theme that we kind of keep coming back to and that i think Horwitz's description of Stone Mountain represents, is the difficulty in balancing political correctness with existing symbol...</p>
<hr />
<div>One theme that we kind of keep coming back to and that i think Horwitz's description of Stone Mountain represents, is the difficulty in balancing political correctness with existing symbols of Confederate pride. Is there a way to balance a fair and modern approach to the history of the south while avoiding socially incendiary messages - and still end up with something meaningful? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-04T23:53:49Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the most interesting people Horwitz meets - and certainly one of the most provocative - was Walt, the cable-box repairing, Star Trek-loving, anti-Semitic vegetarian. Walt's extremism and white supremacist ideas evolved out of the tumultuous politics of the 1960s and a lack of faith in government. For Walt, the Confederacy represented subjected peoples around the world and he fit them into an obsessive, self-deduced picture of the conspiracies that run the world. Naturally, Walt is a crazy person, but does this progression from the unrest of the 1960s to a neoconfederate position have some kind of linear path? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
How does the grandson of a Russian Jew from "between Minsk and Pinsk" get interested in the Confederacy? R.King<br />
<br />
On page 149 Shelby Foote talks about the "difference between North and South", is this 'difference' why the South still clings to the memory of the Civil War and believes such a distorted history of the event? R. King<br />
<br />
While Horwitz is in Vicksburg, he notices a different kind of racial divide than he saw in some other places. What is different about the culture of Vicksburg? Or is any place in the South a Guthrie waiting to happen? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-04T20:45:14Z<p>Ebethel: New page: One of the most interesting people Horwitz meets - and certainly one of the most provocative - was Walt, the cable-box repairing, Star Trek-loving, anti-Semitic vegetarian. Walt's extremi...</p>
<hr />
<div>One of the most interesting people Horwitz meets - and certainly one of the most provocative - was Walt, the cable-box repairing, Star Trek-loving, anti-Semitic vegetarian. Walt's extremism and white supremacist ideas evolved out of the tumultuous politics of the 1960s and a lack of faith in government. For Walt, the Confederacy represented subjected peoples around the world and he fit them into an obsessive, self-deduced picture of the conspiracies that run the world. Naturally, Walt is a crazy person, but does this progression from the unrest of the 1960s to a neoconfederate position have some kind of linear path? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-22T01:24:21Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>In every chapter, Desjardin refers back to this idea of the "mythology" of the Civil War and how it has been shaped by the reinterpretations of the public memory of the war. Do you think that Gettysburg is the perfect symbolism for the "mythology" of the Civil War? -MK <br />
<br />
I too, noticed that Desjardin mentioned the myths behind Gettysburg. Do you think this mythology comes from a lack of fully understanding exactly what the battle and battlefield meant to those soldiers who were actually there? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Do you think that National Parks and Civil War battlefields should explain more of the history behind how and why a particular marker or monument came to be placed at specific sites? Does there need to be more historical justification for these memorials? -MK<br />
<br />
If Farley wanted to reshape the memory of Little Round Top so much why didn't he try to talk himself up like all the men who supposedly shot Reynolds? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Had anyone else not heard of Sickles before? Maybe it's because I have not read enough Civil War things but I don't remember hearing about him before and he seems like a pretty memorable guy. It seems to me like his attempts to get his story to stick did not work too well in the long run. - Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
On page 45, Desjardin refers to a collective "historical inferiority" complex suffered by Americans. This is an idea that I feel, represents a lot of the popular understanding of the Civil War, especially in terms of the themes we have studied in this class. Americans were eager, soon after the war, to begin celebrating the big History, with a capital H, and Gettysburg seemed to be the closest thing. Do you think, for example, that Southerners may have been compensating for something with all of those statues? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
The story about Bachelder's attempt to record the complete account of the battle is extremely interesting. While he was definitely misled and confused by the numerous differing and contradictory accounts from veterans, he seemed to have his own motivation to manipulate some of the facts and to redirect emphasis. Was this strictly a money-making/legacy-building endeavor, or is it more likely that he was looking at his project as an artist and not an historian? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-22T00:04:08Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>In every chapter, Desjardin refers back to this idea of the "mythology" of the Civil War and how it has been shaped by the reinterpretations of the public memory of the war. Do you think that Gettysburg is the perfect symbolism for the "mythology" of the Civil War? -MK <br />
<br />
Do you think that National Parks and Civil War battlefields should explain more of the history behind how and why a particular marker or monument came to be placed at specific sites? Does there need to be more historical justification for these memorials? -MK<br />
<br />
If Farley wanted to reshape the memory of Little Round Top so much why didn't he try to talk himself up like all the men who supposedly shot Reynolds? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Had anyone else not heard of Sickles before? Maybe it's because I have not read enough Civil War things but I don't remember hearing about him before and he seems like a pretty memorable guy. It seems to me like his attempts to get his story to stick did not work too well in the long run. - Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
On page 45, Desjardin refers to a collective "historical inferiority" complex suffered by Americans. This is an idea that I feel, represents a lot of the popular understanding of the Civil War, especially in terms of the themes we have studied in this class. Americans were eager, soon after the war, to begin celebrating the big History, with a capital H, and Gettysburg seemed to be the closest thing. Do you think, for example, that Southerners may have been compensating for something with all of those statues? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-21T23:55:08Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>In every chapter, Desjardin refers back to this idea of the "mythology" of the Civil War and how it has been shaped by the reinterpretations of the public memory of the war. Do you think that Gettysburg is the perfect symbolism for the "mythology" of the Civil War? -MK <br />
<br />
Do you think that National Parks and Civil War battlefields should explain more of the history behind how and why a particular marker or monument came to be placed at specific sites? Does there need to be more historical justification for these memorials? -MK<br />
<br />
If Farley wanted to reshape the memory of Little Round Top so much why didn't he try to talk himself up like all the men who supposedly shot Reynolds? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Had anyone else not heard of Sickles before? Maybe it's because I have not read enough Civil War things but I don't remember hearing about him before and he seems like a pretty memorable guy. It seems to me like his attempts to get his story to stick did not work too well in the long run. - Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
On page 45, Desjardin refers to a collective "historical inferiority" complex suffered by Americans. This is an idea that I feel, represents a lot of the popular understanding of the Civil War, especially in terms of the themes we have studied in this class. Americans were eager, soon after the war, to begin celebrating the big History, with a capital H. Do you think that this idea has carried on, to more recent times, or am I maybe even being too quick to apply this to other themes? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-15T01:06:20Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the Shackel piece, the author talks about African Americans experiences during the war and after. In particular, he mentions a variety of ways in which African Americans began to be recognized especially in the mid-twentieth century. What were some of these ways? How do you think this group of people would have responded to finally being included in the "national consciousness?" -Avanness<br />
<br />
A lot of the readings we have read have talked about how the memorial organizations, monuments, ceremonies etc. have at least partially been created because of the desire to transmit stories to younger generations. Do you think this remains one of the main factors as to why individuals or groups of people wish to commemorate or memorialize events or figures in history today? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Le Anne White concludes her essay with a pondering about what memorialization will look like the further we get from the Civil War. Do you think we as a people will ever put enough distance between us and the Civil War to look at it with a less jaundiced eye? -R.King<br />
<br />
To me the Ayers piece was the most interesting of the three readings. Do you think that a new revisionist look at the Civil War would "place more distance between nineteenth century Americans and ourselves,"? -R.King<br />
<br />
I was a bit disturbed by Shackel's statement that the National Park Service's "interpretation" of the Manassas battle field purposely eliminates any discussion of the causes of the Civil War. Don't you think they should embrace that aspect of the history and at the very least put the battle fought there in some kind of context? -R.King<br />
<br />
In Memory in Black and White Shackle discusses how the construction of public memory has changed since World War II. Author Michael Kammen states that since World War II, commemoration activities in the United States have became increasingly decentralized as the federal government has played a decreasing role in the construction of public memory (Shakle pg. 13). The lack of commemoration activities has played a significant role in the construction of public memory, but what other factors contribute to public memory? Also is the decentralization of commemoration a depoliticized process, or a highly politicized process? -Nick. J<br />
<br />
I also really liked the Ayers article, and reading it made me realize how deeply ingrained the Ken Burns Civil War narrative is in me. Do you think that that narrative is still serving a purpose in American memory? What purpose is that and what would change that narrative's usefulness in defining us as a nation? --Erin B<br />
<br />
Ayers brought up several important points regarding the way narratives on the Civil War have transformed. Is there one or more interpretations that hold more weight than the others? Also, he notes that "slavery and freedom remain the keys to understanding the war- but they are the place to begin our questions, not end them." Do you agree with this assessment? -ABratchie <br />
<br />
Do you think that the partnership between African Americans and white women at the University of Mississippi to change and "take aim at the very aspects of Southern culture that the UDC had labored so diligently to promote" was an isolated case (226)? How much of the Civil War memory do you think really prompted this type of action on the part of the students? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Why was the movement of the Confederate rock to another state building not contested by the students from th University of Missouri who had fought for its removal from campus? Does this say something about the community that the school had created or the community the students expected from the school (229ish Leeann Whites)? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-15T00:33:03Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>In the Shackel piece, the author talks about African Americans experiences during the war and after. In particular, he mentions a variety of ways in which African Americans began to be recognized especially in the mid-twentieth century. What were some of these ways? How do you think this group of people would have responded to finally being included in the "national consciousness?" -Avanness<br />
<br />
A lot of the readings we have read have talked about how the memorial organizations, monuments, ceremonies etc. have at least partially been created because of the desire to transmit stories to younger generations. Do you think this remains one of the main factors as to why individuals or groups of people wish to commemorate or memorialize events or figures in history today? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Le Anne White concludes her essay with a pondering about what memorialization will look like the further we get from the Civil War. Do you think we as a people will ever put enough distance between us and the Civil War to look at it with a less jaundiced eye? -R.King<br />
<br />
To me the Ayers piece was the most interesting of the three readings. Do you think that a new revisionist look at the Civil War would "place more distance between nineteenth century Americans and ourselves,"? -R.King<br />
<br />
I was a bit disturbed by Shackel's statement that the National Park Service's "interpretation" of the Manassas battle field purposely eliminates any discussion of the causes of the Civil War. Don't you think they should embrace that aspect of the history and at the very least put the battle fought there in some kind of context? -R.King<br />
<br />
In Memory in Black and White Shackle discusses how the construction of public memory has changed since World War II. Author Michael Kammen states that since World War II, commemoration activities in the United States have became increasingly decentralized as the federal government has played a decreasing role in the construction of public memory (Shakle pg. 13). The lack of commemoration activities has played a significant role in the construction of public memory, but what other factors contribute to public memory? Also is the decentralization of commemoration a depoliticized process, or a highly politicized process? -Nick. J<br />
<br />
I also really liked the Ayers article, and reading it made me realize how deeply ingrained the Ken Burns Civil War narrative is in me. Do you think that that narrative is still serving a purpose in American memory? What purpose is that and what would change that narrative's usefulness in defining us as a nation? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-07T20:01:10Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>On page 123 Coski states that in 1948, presumably following the surge in flag-bearing during the Dixiecrat campaign while anticipating the flag fad in the early 50s, "the UDC sought to prevent political groups from appropriating the flag and to prevent misuse of the flag by souvenir manufacturers and overzealous youths." What do you think would have constituted "misuse" in the eyes of the UDC and what meaning were they trying to protect? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
Some flag defenders resented the conflation of the Confederate battle flag with racism as it was taken up by segregationist groups during the era of Civil Rights and massive resistance. What was the tradition that they sought protect by keeping certain southern attitudes separate from an historical symbol? Even when divorced of the more recent violent implications of the Confederate flag (like use by the KKK), Senator Mosely-Braun points on page 197 that the historical importance of the flag is equally as capable of serving as a painful reminder of ongoing racial inequality and prejudice, so how do you think heritage organizations and flag 'purists' would have responded to that? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-07T20:00:16Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>On page 123 Coski states that in 1948, presumably following the surge in flag-bearing during the Dixiecrat campaign while anticipating the flag fad in the early 50s, "the UDC sought to prevent political groups from appropriating the flag and to prevent misuse of the flag by souvenir manufacturers and overzealous youths." What do you think would have constituted "misuse" in the eyes of the UDC and what meaning were they trying to protect? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
Some flag defenders resented the conflation of the Confederate battle flag with racism as it was taken up by segregationist groups during the era of Civil Rights and massive resistance. What was the tradition that they sought protect by keeping certain southern attitudes separate from an historical symbol? Even when divorced of the more recent violent implications of the Confederate flag (like use by the KKK), Senator Mosely-Braun points on page 197 that the historical importance of the flag is equally as capable of serving as a painful reminder of ongoing racial inequality and prejudice, so how do you think heritage organizations and flag 'purists' respond to that? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-03-07T15:08:23Z<p>Ebethel: New page: On page 123 Coski states that in 1948, presumably following the surge in flag-bearing during the Dixiecrat campaign while anticipating the flag fad in the early 50s, "the UDC sought to pre...</p>
<hr />
<div>On page 123 Coski states that in 1948, presumably following the surge in flag-bearing during the Dixiecrat campaign while anticipating the flag fad in the early 50s, "the UDC sought to prevent political groups from appropriating the flag and to prevent misuse of the flag by souvenir manufacturers and overzealous youths." What do you think would have constituted "misuse" in the eyes of the UDC and what meaning were they trying to protect? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-24T04:17:37Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the conversation Ferguson had with the man, Robert, at the conference was interesting. In particular, "Southerners accepted Jim Crow only with the greatest reluctance, he told me. Segregation was a response to demands from the Northern businessmen following the Civil War," was an idea I have not heard of. I wonder, do you think this is a more modern argument on the side of the South to defend their reasons as to why they created such strict segregation laws or was this what "Lost Causers" and Southerners would have claimed even in the late 1800s? -avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
How do you think the smaller Lincoln memorial in Richmond and the grand statue of Abe Lincoln in Washington, D.C. differ in their effectiveness and meaning for people? What was the purpose behind creating one so large and one that sat among the people? -avanness<br />
<br />
On page 65 Ferguson discusses how William Petersen wrote ''''Lincoln-Douglas: The Weather as Destiny'''', which tied Lincoln's behavior to the weather. I found this to be very interesting and was wondering what do you think Lincoln's mood/ behavior would be in certain kinds of weather? Also does weather actually have any effect on our mood? -Nick J<br />
<br />
This book immediately, and throughout, reminded me of Confederates in the Attic. I know it has not been assigned yet, but for those of us who have already ready it, I think it bears mentioning that the authors write very similarly. They even describe how they were obsessed with the Civil War when they were little (different sides though!) and how it faded away when they were teens. Furthermore, they both spend their book on a quest to find out the real meaning behind America’s obsession with these Civil War figures. I feel like they are practically the same book, just dealing with different sides. – Angie<br />
<br />
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that it was elites who wanted to put the statue of Abe and Tad in Richmond. They were even southern elites who defended the honor of the Confederacy, like the Dabney fellow. Why does this socioeconomic class tend to be more reconciliationist than others? They were ones who essentially owned the South during the Civil War anyways. Why aren’t they as offended by a Northern statue in the Confederate capitol? – Angie<br />
<br />
I was surprised that Ferguson opened with the controversy over the Lincoln statue. I was expecting a brief history or a run down of his presidency to get the readers aquainted with the topic especially since this isn't an academic work. Does this reinforce the idea the everyone is expected to know who Lincoln was and what he did? And do you think this was the best way to jump into the story? I agree with Angie too, this book really reminds me of "Confederates in the Attic". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
We talked a little bit about this on Tuesday, but I still find it striking that people molded Lincoln in whatever they saw fit to their needs and how there are so many differing views on who Lincoln was and what he stood for. Why do you think Lincoln's image (opposed to other historical figures and Civil War figures) was (and still is) molded and shaped into so many different meanings? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Throughout the work, Ferguson highlights how Lincoln is now a commodity in a sense (museums, trails, etc). For example, Ferguson quotes Antigoni, "Put Lincoln's name on it, and you can sell anything." (198) Do you think the comodification of Lincoln's image and memory is important? Does this affect the way he is viewed in relation to the Civil War, and what is lost in this comodification of Lincoln? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Ferguson's assessment of Lincoln being identified as "Mussolini, on the one hand, Mr. Rogers on the other," (39) struck me as sort of hilarious and true. The way in which Lincoln is presented to elementary school kids basically illustrates him as the ultimate goody-goody, albeit the goody-goody who freed the slaves. What about the classic narrative of Lincoln’s early or political life makes this the case? Based on this book's telling of Herndon's collection of memories of him, did it seem like he was destined to have this image projected on him by his acquaintances that mourned his death? -- Erin B<br />
<br />
Chapter 5, about collecting, was particularly interesting to me. How did Louise’s motivation for collecting differ from the Chief’s? What kinds of artifacts was Louise looking for and why? -- Erin B</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-09T20:27:54Z<p>Ebethel: New page: The textbook war waged by the UCV and the UDC had the interesting outcome of causing Northern publishers to pander to Southern narratives out of fear of a boycott of their products. This ...</p>
<hr />
<div>The textbook war waged by the UCV and the UDC had the interesting outcome of causing Northern publishers to pander to Southern narratives out of fear of a boycott of their products. This is a good illustration of the issues of the Civil War simply meaning more to the South than it did to the North. I wonder, though, if these discrepancies were ever noted by Northern schoolchildren in any way nearly approaching that of Southern school children. – Erin B.<br />
<br />
Do you read the trends in juvenile Civil War fiction in the 1880s as an attempt to instill the ideals they supported (white supremacy, white reconciliation, etc.) or were the writers simply responding to the market? – Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-02-07T21:17:24Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>The soldiers who wrote pieces for magazines such as the ''Confederate Veteran'' included a lot of stories or war memories that related to or tied into reconciliation. Blight even stated that reconciliation and fraternalism dominated a lot of the ex-soldiers memories. Since these stories and memories were all written down, I was wondering if you think the idea for reconciliation, at least among the soldiers, would have come as quickly if the veterans had never received the opportunity to write for the magazines? -Avanness<br />
<br />
I was a little surprised to read repeatedly how proponents of the Lost Cause believed and stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. They argued that secession from the Union was the main cause for the South's participation in the war. People who believed in the Lost Cause even ended up rejecting people like John Mosby who was against reunion and was adamant about claiming slavery was the cause of the war. Why do you think this was? Do you think the South was really just trying to save their image or were they really ready for reconciliation with the North? -Avanness<br />
<br />
In Chapter 6, most of the veterans’ recollections and assessments of battle and the war in general became popular about twenty years after the war. Blight mentions that for many of the soldiers, dwelling on some of the raw memories in the years just following the war was simply too painful, but then later in the chapter suggests some other reasons that celebrating the valor of the soldiers gained common appreciation across sections. What caused the nationwide decline in race relations in the last decades of the century? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
Blight quotes Robert S. Dabney on pg 263 as having written that "Yankees would ultimately meet their just fate...'in the day of their calamity, in pages of impartial history, and in the Day of Judgement.'" Harsh words. Do you think that religion played a larger role in understanding the effects of the war in South than in the North? What kind of a role did it play in South? -- Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-02-07T20:31:53Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>The soldiers who wrote pieces for magazines such as the ''Confederate Veteran'' included a lot of stories or war memories that related to or tied into reconciliation. Blight even stated that reconciliation and fraternalism dominated a lot of the ex-soldiers memories. Since these stories and memories were all written down, I was wondering if you think the idea for reconciliation, at least among the soldiers, would have come as quickly if the veterans had never received the opportunity to write for the magazines? -Avanness<br />
<br />
I was a little surprised to read repeatedly how proponents of the Lost Cause believed and stated that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. They argued that secession from the Union was the main cause for the South's participation in the war. People who believed in the Lost Cause even ended up rejecting people like John Mosby who was against reunion and was adamant about claiming slavery was the cause of the war. Why do you think this was? Do you think the South was really just trying to save their image or were they really ready for reconciliation with the North? -Avanness<br />
<br />
In Chapter 6, most of the veterans’ recollections and assessments of battle and the war in general became popular about twenty years after the war. Blight mentions that for many of the soldiers, dwelling on some of the raw memories in the years just following the war was simply too painful, but then later in the chapter suggests some other reasons that celebrating the valor of the soldiers gained common appreciation across sections. What caused the nationwide decline in race relations in the last decades of the century? – Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-03T03:32:57Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>The memories of John Brown and Heyward Shepherd have been co-opted by different groups over the years, serving purposes that helped promote those different ideals according to the social climate of the times. All in all, though, it seems that a large part of these ideals haven’t changed as much as one might think. In particular, I was extremely surprised to hear that the UDC would still embrace the myths of the faithful slave and mammy as recently as the 1990s. How would these interpretations of an outlawed society still serve these groups 150 years later? –Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Do you think a symbol such as the John Brown Fort has a rightful place among the memorialization of the Civil War? Do you think that since white people had thier own monuments African Americans were entitled to also have something that could be viewed as a "symbol of their abolitionist struggle?" (pg. 65) -Avanness<br />
<br />
How do you think ex African American Union soldiers, newly freed black people, and black people in general during the late 1800s felt about the Shaw Memorial? Especially since it was supposed to be honoring a group of black soldiers yet was named only after their white leader and hardly even featured the black soldiers? Why do you think people didn't question it sooner? Do you think they were happy just to be included at all? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Is it the location or the building that is revered by visitors? The John Brown Fort was dismantled and rebuilt in several different places. Each time bricks would be stolen by scavengers so that the Fort is now made up of mostly new bricks rather than the ones in the fort at the time of John Brown’s raid. I feel as if the specialness is kind of ruined if the historic building is simply a reproduction or even moved to a different location. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The Heyward Shepherd memorial became a symbol of the Lost Cause and the embodiment of the former southern class system, ie. slaves subordinate to the Southern whites. Why do you think groups like the UDC and SCV were motivated and persistent in commemorating/displaying a monument of this particular moment in Civil War history? How do you think confederate veterans would have felt about this monument? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
John Brown's Fort exchanged many hands during its movement from West Virginia, to Chicago and back to West Virginia. What role do you think this movement and reassembling of the fort did to the memory of the event? Also, the fort was symbolic for African Americans as a symbol of their struggle for freedom and equality. Do think this was lost at all during its various moves and rebuilding? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Some members of the African American committee who discussed updating the Shaw memorial were against the addition of the names of the individual members of the regiment, saying that their absence would serve as a "reminder of the racial prejudice that had characterized the late 19th century" (137), something that apparently was not suggested concerning the recently ongoing controversy surrounding the Shepherd memorial. Is there anything different about these two circumstances or monuments? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-02T15:17:20Z<p>Ebethel: New page: The memories of John Brown and Heyward Shepherd have been co-opted by different groups over the years, serving purposes that helped promote those different ideals according to the social c...</p>
<hr />
<div>The memories of John Brown and Heyward Shepherd have been co-opted by different groups over the years, serving purposes that helped promote those different ideals according to the social climate of the times. All in all, though, it seems that a large part of these ideals haven’t changed as much as one might think. In particular, I was extremely surprised to hear that the UDC would still embrace the myths of the faithful slave and mammy as recently as the 1990s. How would these interpretations of an outlawed society still serve these groups 150 years later? –Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-28T22:34:33Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Although I'm hesitant to say that the women in Augusta gained power through the memorial ceremonies and rituals, it certainly seems true that they gained potency and presence. Were these women, and others around the former Confederacy, simply made symbols, or was this part of a greater process by which women gained political and social power? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
How did the "divorce" of the Confederate cause from the Confederate dead result in the new understanding of both? Did this assist in a new, Christianized understanding of the Confederate dead? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-28T21:48:04Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Although I'm hesitant to say that the women in Augusta gained power through the memorial ceremonies and rituals, it certainly seems true that they gained potency and presence. Were these women, and others around the former Confederacy simply made symbols, or was this part of a greater process by which women gained political and social power? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
How did the "divorce" of the Confederate cause from the Confederate dead result in a new understanding of both? Did this assist in a new, Christianized understanding of the Confederate dead? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_4_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 4 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-28T20:58:05Z<p>Ebethel: New page: Although I'm hesitant to say that the women in Augusta gained power through the memorial ceremonies and rituals, it certainly seems true that they gained potency and presence. Were these ...</p>
<hr />
<div>Although I'm hesitant to say that the women in Augusta gained power through the memorial ceremonies and rituals, it certainly seems true that they gained potency and presence. Were these women, and others around the former Confederacy simply made symbols, or was this part of a greater process by which women gained political and social power? --Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-27T03:28:47Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Memorial Day was founded by African Americans in Charleston. However, as the holiday became national, African Americans were usually left out of the rhetoric used in speeches on Memorial Day, which usually spoke to reconciliation. What do you think was the reason? --MK<br />
<br />
Writing served as an outlet and an avenue of memorialization of the war for veteran soldiers. Do you think the soldiers' memories of the War that were published tainted the meaning or significance of their memories? --MK<br />
<br />
How do you think veterans reacted to the publishing of ''Miss Ravenal's Conversion from Secession to Loyalty''? Blight notes that the piece did not sell well, but I wonder what reactions people had towards it. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On page 73 Blight says that “Americans now had a defining past of mythic battles.” Why was the Revolutionary War pretty much ignored as a source of “mythic battles” for the United States and the Civil War so popularized? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Blight quotes the ''New York Herald'' on page 87, "The man whose memory dates back over a month is voted a bore, and accused of being interested in ancient history." This was the tone the paper wished for the Memorial Day set to happen May 30, 1877 in New York City. How do you think veterans of the war felt after reading this type of statement? Was it that easy to forget personal memories of the Civil War? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Blight says “Civil War memorialization should not be used for political purposes among the children born since the war.” (Pg94) However, six presidents elected were veterans of the war. How might they have used this in their campaign as the forms of memorialization changed in the decades after the war? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the story about Governor Kemper and Jubal Early was interesting. In 1875 during a huge celebration in Richmond, Early told Governor Kemper that he did not want blacks at the festivities during Memorial Day. Kemper was going to ignore him but still complied a little by have the black people walk at the back of the parade and alleviated the Virginia General Assembly from taking part, a group that had a few black members in it. Blight then talks about how Early used this strategy as a way to erase blacks from confederate memory. Do you think alleviating them from this celebration could have led to them being erased from Confederate memory? Why do you think the Governor did not ignore Early fully and allow black people to participate in all the celebrations? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger Pryor made a speech in 1877 about how the war had nothing to do with slavery. He claimed that slavery "just went away like the change in the weather" (pg. 91). He further said that no Southerner fought to save slaveryt nor did any Northerner end it. Do you think this argument would have been powerful enough that Northern and Southern citizens would have agreed to them? How common do you think this rhetoric was? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight makes it clear that both Union and Confederate histories of the war were published and read throughout the country. Why the did the Southern version become the one most accepted? --R.King<br />
<br />
What part did Decoration/Memorial Day play in the Civil War being remembered in a reconciliation view? --R.King<br />
<br />
The episode that occurred in Richmond during the unveiling of the Stonewall Jackson memorial demonstrated the roles black southerners were to play in the Lost Cause narrative. On page 83 Blight says, “the only blacks who formally participated were a contingent of former slave workers who had been in the Stonewall Brigade during the war,” and this group was positioned at the very end of a long parade. How does this episode represent the popular amnesia or reremembering process that took place across the South following the war? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
Robert E. Lee spoke urged the nation to "not keep open the sores of war" (149). Was this unique among southerners? - Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-27T03:08:41Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>Memorial Day was founded by African Americans in Charleston. However, as the holiday became national, African Americans were usually left out of the rhetoric used in speeches on Memorial Day, which usually spoke to reconciliation. What do you think was the reason? --MK<br />
<br />
Writing served as an outlet and an avenue of memorialization of the war for veteran soldiers. Do you think the soldiers' memories of the War that were published tainted the meaning or significance of their memories? --MK<br />
<br />
How do you think veterans reacted to the publishing of ''Miss Ravenal's Conversion from Secession to Loyalty''? Blight notes that the piece did not sell well, but I wonder what reactions people had towards it. -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On page 73 Blight says that “Americans now had a defining past of mythic battles.” Why was the Revolutionary War pretty much ignored as a source of “mythic battles” for the United States and the Civil War so popularized? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Blight quotes the ''New York Herald'' on page 87, "The man whose memory dates back over a month is voted a bore, and accused of being interested in ancient history." This was the tone the paper wished for the Memorial Day set to happen May 30, 1877 in New York City. How do you think veterans of the war felt after reading this type of statement? Was it that easy to forget personal memories of the Civil War? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Blight says “Civil War memorialization should not be used for political purposes among the children born since the war.” (Pg94) However, six presidents elected were veterans of the war. How might they have used this in their campaign as the forms of memorialization changed in the decades after the war? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the story about Governor Kemper and Jubal Early was interesting. In 1875 during a huge celebration in Richmond, Early told Governor Kemper that he did not want blacks at the festivities during Memorial Day. Kemper was going to ignore him but still complied a little by have the black people walk at the back of the parade and alleviated the Virginia General Assembly from taking part, a group that had a few black members in it. Blight then talks about how Early used this strategy as a way to erase blacks from confederate memory. Do you think alleviating them from this celebration could have led to them being erased from Confederate memory? Why do you think the Governor did not ignore Early fully and allow black people to participate in all the celebrations? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
Roger Pryor made a speech in 1877 about how the war had nothing to do with slavery. He claimed that slavery "just went away like the change in the weather" (pg. 91). He further said that no Southerner fought to save slaveryt nor did any Northerner end it. Do you think this argument would have been powerful enough that Northern and Southern citizens would have agreed to them? How common do you think this rhetoric was? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight makes it clear that both Union and Confederate histories of the war were published and read throughout the country. Why the did the Southern version become the one most accepted? --R.King<br />
<br />
What part did Decoration/Memorial Day play in the Civil War being remembered in a reconciliation view? --R.King<br />
<br />
The episode that occurred in Richmond during the unveiling of the Stonewall Jackson memorial demonstrated the roles black southerners were to play in the Lost Cause narrative. On page 83 Blight says, “the only blacks who formally participated were a contingent of former slave workers who had been in the Stonewall Brigade during the war,” and this group was positioned at the very end of a long parade. How does this episode represent the popular amnesia or reremembering process that took place across the South following the war? -Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-24T22:52:17Z<p>Ebethel: /* Fahs/Waugh, "Anna Dickinson" */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions/Debate topics ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Trelease ==<br />
<br />
Were any of the Senators/Representatives in the KKK Hearings from the South? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Heretofore such men had served their masters only in the fields; now they would do not less faithful service at the polls.” As Trelease points out, “Nowhere did white underestimation of negro intelligence show itself more clearly.” While this opinion was not held the majority of white Southerners, it does demonstrate the paternalistic impulse left over from slavery. What were some of the ways in which vigilantism like the KKK was rationalized alongside a belief in a childlike dependence by the former slaves? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Fahs/Waugh, "Anna Dickinson" ==<br />
<br />
Many men believed that women belonged in the home and not in politics, yet here was Dickinson giving political lectures and being asked by candidates to support them in her speeches (shown in Fahs and Wah’s reading when Greeley and Wilson were trying to “lure her into the campaign. Pg??) Dickinson might not have been lecturing for women’s suffrage by why wasn’t she used as an example that women did have the mind to understand politics and be allowed to vote? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Really a bummer of an ending. When reading about the political atmosphere/discussion from this period, you almost have to expect high levels of partisan and sectional loyalties that frame all arguments and contribute to the legacy of bitterness one associates with Reconstruction – which makes reading about Dickinson and the nomination of Greeley by the Democrats all the more interesting and complicating. What could have made Dickinson hesitant to align herself more with the biggest names in women’s suffrage? –Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Blight ==</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-24T22:48:21Z<p>Ebethel: /* Trelease */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions/Debate topics ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Trelease ==<br />
<br />
Were any of the Senators/Representatives in the KKK Hearings from the South? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Heretofore such men had served their masters only in the fields; now they would do not less faithful service at the polls.” As Trelease points out, “Nowhere did white underestimation of negro intelligence show itself more clearly.” While this opinion was not held the majority of white Southerners, it does demonstrate the paternalistic impulse left over from slavery. What were some of the ways in which vigilantism like the KKK was rationalized alongside a belief in a childlike dependence by the former slaves? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Fahs/Waugh, "Anna Dickinson" ==<br />
<br />
Many men believed that women belonged in the home and not in politics, yet here was Dickinson giving political lectures and being asked by candidates to support them in her speeches (shown in Fahs and Wah’s reading when Greeley and Wilson were trying to “lure her into the campaign. Pg??) Dickinson might not have been lecturing for women’s suffrage by why wasn’t she used as an example that women did have the mind to understand politics and be allowed to vote? –Megan Mc. <br />
<br />
<br />
== Blight ==</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-19T23:41:00Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>As mentioned in class, the people at this time did not have the ability to figure out who was who based on DNA when trying to bury them and report to their families. In Faust's reading, somehow James Moore was able to identify 12,912 of the 13,363 bodies of Union soldiers from Andersonville. This just seems remarkable. How long did it take him to figure the identifications of so many men? And how? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Faust talks about how the national reburial program led to the redefining of the nation. How did the treatment of the dead jeopardize the redefinition of the nation? --MK <br />
<br />
Do you think that the use of songs in the slaves' memory of the Civil War and Emancipation impact or influence the memory for those who were relatively young at the time? --MK<br />
<br />
Faust discusses the role of blacks in the burials of Union soldiers across the South (192-193) and how impartial blacks were to helping the bury the Union dead. Why do you think this was, and what kind of fears do you think the slaves encountered from whites in the south who were hostile to the burying of Union soldiers in the south? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
The issue of a proper and honorable burial for soldiers, especially Union soldiers in the South was a problem after the war. How much do you think this process of creating a national cemetery system contributed to reconciliation? -Avanness<br />
<br />
A couple times in Blight's book, African Americans' sentiments towards the war and slavery were mentioned. A good amount of the time it seemed like they wanted to look past the fact that they were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years. Was forgetting slavery something that most African Americans wanted to do in an attempt for reconciliation? This seems like a reaction that immediately followed the war but did not last long. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight briefly talks about how women in the South initially remembered the war after the Confederacy's defeat. A theme of gloom seems overwhelming for many women in the south and how they remembered the war. How often did women in the south feel this "gloomy" emotion after the conclusion of the Civil War and how did it affect their memory of it? Also, what about Northern Women? What were their perceptions on the conclusion of the war and their memories? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Faust’s piece contrasts the reinterment process taken on by the federal government for Union soldiers with that taken on by families and women’s organizations for Confederates. The disparity really demonstrates some of the unique awkwardness of the Civil War and Reconstruction. How does this particular aspect of the aftermath of the war help to explain some of the long-held, sectional bad feelings? -Erin B.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-18T02:35:39Z<p>Ebethel: /* Blight, ''Race and Reunion'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== McPherson, What They Fought For, ==<br />
<br />
In McPherson's "What They Fought For," the issue of slavery was left out in the majority of the letters on both the Union and Confederate sides (pg. 49). However, many soldiers understood the War as fundamentally about slavery instead of reunion after the Emancipation Proclamation. Do you think the absence of slavery in the letters affected the soldiers' memories? --MK Napier <br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson discusses the both the North and the South's reasons for fighting and through his sampling of letters, he was able to draw some parallels between the two. Both sides seemed to connect one of their reasons for fighting to the American Revolution and upholding a sense of liberty. Do you think this connection to the American Revolution and the Civil War is important? Did many soldiers experience similar sentiments, not just the ones from McPherson's sampling? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson sampling techniques are to say the least "interesting" and at worst suspect. He has taken a very unbalanced approach when it comes to confederate letters and diaries yet takes a more balanced approach with the northern articles. Is he taking Telsen's approach of constructing a history to fit his needs or is it something more benign? -- R.King<br />
<br />
McPherson repeated over and over again about how the Confederate soldiers expected to win, that it would be better to die for the cause, and he even used the term "subjugated" to refer to losing the war to be a fate worse than death. Later on in the reading he also used the term "glorious cause." I wonder how words like this that are written in soldiers' diaries and read throughout primary sources shape the way in which people think of the Confederacy, their passion, and their reasons for their involvement in the war? -Avanness<br />
<br />
McPherson suggests that, based on his sample of journal entries, Confederate soldiers seemed largely oblivious to the irony of their references to slavery and freedom when referring to the "tyranny" of the Yankees, while suggesting that their Revolution-era counterparts were typically appreciative of this “paradox” (50-51). Is this demonstrative of a shift in culture in the South since the American Revolution or is it just an example of how patriotism is written about in war-time journal entries? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson throughout the section on "Holy Cause of Liberty and Independence" describes the Confederacy's motivation in fighting and discusses that the defense of their homeland was one of their chief motivations. Defending their homeland from the Union seemed to greatly inspire the Confederacy and in response to their fighting spirit a sergeant from Illinois wrote that the Confederates " fight Devils in Tophet because the were fighting to keep an enemy out of their own neighborhood and their own property" (19). An officer also from Illinois summarized the Confederacy's war motivation fairly well by stating " they are fighting from different motives than us. We are fighting for the Union... a high and noble sentiment but after all only a sentiment. They are fighting for independence and are animated by passion and hatred against invaders ... it makes no reason whether their cause is just or not. Do you agree with this statement that it made no difference if the Confederacy's cause was just or not?- Nick J.<br />
<br />
McPherson's article outlines the various motives for fighting, and the particular confederate and union attitudes regarding each other. One chapter outlined the "confederate bloodlust" at seeing dead yankees, a particularly striking chapter, but there was no parallel description of Yankee point-of-view as particularly morbid. Why would the south be more inclined to emphasize in correspondence home this morbid satisfaction? Or is this a result of historiographical error or bias?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
In ''Remembering Slavery'', many of the slaves mention that did not understand the meaning of 'freedom'. For example, on page 215, a salve girl remarks, "I didn't know what 'free' meant, and I askes Mrs. Harris if I was free." I'd imagine that many slaves did not understand this concept as well, but my question is, how many of them asked their slaveholder what the meaning of free was and got a truthful answer? Were the slaveholders able to exploit their slaves further even after the Civil War ended simply because many did not understand what it meant to be free? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
== Blight, ''Race and Reunion'' ==<br />
<br />
In ''Race and Reunion'' Blight talks about themes of rebirth, reunion, and reconciliation of the nation at the end of the Civil War. Do you think that the southern memory of the Civil War (in particular the Lost Cause, Jim Crow Laws, etc.) were an attempt to stop the "rebirth" of the nation?--MK Napier<br />
<br />
Why did the promoters of the 1913 Gettysburg reunion discourage discussion of the causes of the war? Was it because it would have shown the war to be a Union failure in light of the countries acceptance of Jim Crow? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Blight's reading and throughout "Remembering Slavery," the idea of a Black Civil War memory is mentioned. I wonder how important you think their memories about Civil War are in the way we have shaped the Civil War in our memory today? Do you think they are more important than Union or Confederate soldiers' memories or that many of their memories have been lost over time due to their slave status? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
In Race and Reunion, Blight discusses Walt Whitman’s writing about his experiences in Civil War hospitals and the ways in which witnessing the brutality of war inspired his later writing, especially the themes of death and destruction as a means to national rebirth, and redefinition. But the issues of abolition and race are absent from Whitman’s poetry and prose concerning his experiences with the “Secession War.” How does this reflect the larger, national understanding of the meaning of the end of the war for white Americans? - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== General questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== debate topics ==<br />
<br />
McPherson talks about northern women extolling their husbands to return home, that family was more important then fighting for their country. Did southern women fell the same way or did they feel as there husbands did. -- R.King<br />
<br />
In ''Remembering Slavery'': the importance of song and folk lyrics as their own battlefield: how did the southern blacks use song to demonstrate and spread their own current events knowledge, and what examples in this article struck you most?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
As mentioned before in McPherson’s piece both the Union soldiers and the Confederates compared themselves to the men who fought in the Revolutionary War. In your opinion, did one side have a stronger argument in comparing themselves to their forefathers? –Megan Mc.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-17T23:04:02Z<p>Ebethel: /* McPherson, What They Fought For, */</p>
<hr />
<div>== McPherson, What They Fought For, ==<br />
<br />
In McPherson's "What They Fought For," the issue of slavery was left out in the majority of the letters on both the Union and Confederate sides (pg. 49). However, many soldiers understood the War as fundamentally about slavery instead of reunion after the Emancipation Proclamation. Do you think the absence of slavery in the letters affected the soldiers' memories? --MK Napier <br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson discusses the both the North and the South's reasons for fighting and through his sampling of letters, he was able to draw some parallels between the two. Both sides seemed to connect one of their reasons for fighting to the American Revolution and upholding a sense of liberty. Do you think this connection to the American Revolution and the Civil War is important? Did many soldiers experience similar sentiments, not just the ones from McPherson's sampling? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
McPherson sampling techniques are to say the least "interesting" and at worst suspect. He has taken a very unbalanced approach when it comes to confederate letters and diaries yet takes a more balanced approach with the northern articles. Is he taking Telsen's approach of constructing a history to fit his needs or is it something more benign? -- R.King<br />
<br />
McPherson repeated over and over again about how the Confederate soldiers expected to win, that it would be better to die for the cause, and he even used the term "subjugated" to refer to losing the war to be a fate worse than death. Later on in the reading he also used the term "glorious cause." I wonder how words like this that are written in soldiers' diaries and read throughout primary sources shape the way in which people think of the Confederacy, their passion, and their reasons for their involvement in the war? -Avanness<br />
<br />
McPherson suggests that, based on his sample of journal entries, Confederate soldiers seemed largely oblivious to the irony of their references to slavery and freedom when referring to the "tyranny" of the Yankees, while suggesting that their Revolution-era counterparts were typically appreciative of this “paradox” (50-51). Is this demonstrative of a shift in culture in the South since the American Revolution or is it just an example of how patriotism is written about in war-time journal entries? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
In ''Remembering Slavery'', many of the slaves mention that did not understand the meaning of 'freedom'. For example, on page 215, a salve girl remarks, "I didn't know what 'free' meant, and I askes Mrs. Harris if I was free." I'd imagine that many slaves did not understand this concept as well, but my question is, how many of them asked their slaveholder what the meaning of free was and got a truthful answer? Were the slaveholders able to exploit their slaves further even after the Civil War ended simply because many did not understand what it meant to be free? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
== Blight, ''Race and Reunion'' ==<br />
<br />
In ''Race and Reunion'' Blight talks about themes of rebirth, reunion, and reconciliation of the nation at the end of the Civil War. Do you think that the southern memory of the Civil War (in particular the Lost Cause, Jim Crow Laws, etc.) were an attempt to stop the "rebirth" of the nation?--MK Napier<br />
<br />
Why did the promoters of the 1913 Gettysburg reunion discourage discussion of the causes of the war? Was it because it would have shown the war to be a Union failure in light of the countries acceptance of Jim Crow? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
In Blight's reading and throughout "Remembering Slavery," the idea of a Black Civil War memory is mentioned. I wonder how important you think their memories about Civil War are in the way we have shaped the Civil War in our memory today? Do you think they are more important than Union or Confederate soldiers' memories or that many of their memories have been lost over time due to their slave status? -Avanness<br />
<br />
== General questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== debate topics ==<br />
<br />
McPherson talks about northern women extolling their husbands to return home, that family was more important then fighting for their country. Did southern women fell the same way or did they feel as there husbands did. -- R.King</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T01:25:47Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult. The higher graduation rate in the trade school was "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (278). They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site. It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site. They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
==Jamala McFadden Tells Her Story of Welfare Assistance in the 1990s, 2002==<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
==Sex and Sports, Mariah Burton Nelson, 1994==<br />
<br />
This article highlights the transition Nelson was forced to make from the community she found as a young woman where she felt free and empowered to celebrate herself and express herself as a lesbian, to the "real world" where she was forced to choose between being open about her homosexuality or continue playing professional basketball. I couldn't believe they sent the women on the California team to charm school in order to "portray a feminine (that is, heterosexual) image." [311] The focus on this transition effectively illustrates the societal stifling of those perceived to be different, particularly those who challenge socially-encouraged gender roles. This transition is reflected in a sort of reverse in the following account "La Mujer," where the writer finds her individuality and strength when she is finally able to explore her identity after a stifling adolescence. -Erin B. <br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it. It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends. Those poor guys! And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)? I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today. People have it in their every day vocabulary (it's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don't seem to treat it like the crime it is!). I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job. Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work. And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things. Has she been posed? And is she actually happy with what she is doing? Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has. Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have. It could only be through society's limited career options for blacks that she became a chef. And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women. This certainly makes one think. Do employers really look at skill? Or are they still blindsided by prejudices? They probably were when this photo was taken (1976). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==Target Women, Critiquing Depictions of Women in the Media==<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken discussed on Tuesday the continually questionable depiction of women in the media and the criticisms of it. I can’t say the number of times my mother has seen a commercial and made a derisive comment about why it has to be mom cleaning up after her incompetent husband and kids, or why around Mother’s Day there are commercials about getting appliances and jewelry while during Father’s Day it’s electronics or actually cool things, or how only women seem to have digestive or plumbing problems. I wanted to share with you all [http://current.com/shows/infomania/target-women/ Target Women with Sarah Haskins], which is basically a humorous and sarcastic challenge to all those ridiculous, shallow commercials. How to be a [http://current.com/shows/infomania/89771812_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-super-special.htm lady] according to commercials: yogurt! looking cute while exercising! cleaning the house! cooking! heart to hearts with girlfriends! jewelry face! marriage! -- Taylor Brann</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_14_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 14 Questions/Comments2010-04-22T00:38:55Z<p>Ebethel: /* The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Susan Eisenberg, Hard-Hatted Women ==<br />
<br />
I like the comparison Susan Eisenberg made on page 279 when she says, “Entering construction in the late 1970s was a little like falling in love with someone who you weren’t supposed to.” It seems that the problem for these women was not enjoying the job, but the hostility they faced from men and the fear they had of what the men would think of things such as pregnancy. It is good that these women had each other to lean on and form close bonds. I would guess that the majority of them would not have lasted if they didn’t have these strong connections to other women. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin on her post. It is great that these women had a community of a few other women who were going through the same things to motivate and identify with each other. Many women did not have that in the work place. I found it interesting when Eisenberg talked about working up until being about 6 months pregnant. Her friends outside of work couldn’t conceive (no pun intended) of the notion that people wouldn’t notice that she was pregnant, but as she said “no one expected to see a pregnant woman on a construction site”(280) so they didn’t see it at all under her baggy work cloths. She also presented herself as “she always had” (280) so they really didn’t see a difference. What I found to be sad was her experience on the work-site with the banter that the men had with each other. While they were joking about beating their wives and other assorted misogynistic things, she was quietly crying to herself in private. It is unfortunate because I feel like that still goes on. When I used to work in restaurants that banter was certainly happening behind the scenes which made many female co-workers uncomfortable. The difference now is that we are able to speak out against and potentially have action taken whereas Eisenberg really felt that had no power to do so in her position and industry. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin and Caryn. It like how the women formed a support network amongst each other when working with the crass men became too much for any one of them to bear alone. However, I also found it interesting how the women didn't just get support from other "hard hatted" women, but from all women in general. Eisenberg talks about how she ran into women who wished they had led the lifestyle she had and who constantly encouraged her to keep going when things got tough. I think this really illustrates the "sisterhood" aspect of the women's lib movement. Women of different backgrounds rallied behind Eisenberg and her peers to make sure they had the support and the opportunity that they needed to keep going. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin, that line describes her passion in being a journeywoman. I found her experiences with combining her position and her pregnancy most moving. Pregnancy is an emotional and delicate process that a woman goes through. Pregnancy combined with feeling that co-workers would look at you differently and change the dynamics of work if they knew of the pregnancy. It is understandable why she didn’t tell them until later in her pregnancy. She did not want her co-workers to think she couldn‘t do her job any less than them. She was dealing with a lot of opposition in a field so new to women. As I read this piece, I got a sense of the enormous pressure she had on her and how it would be natural for her to draw strength from other women in the field. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin and Mhimes, in respect to the passion Eisenberg felt for her job and her willingness to conceal her pregnancy. The line that grabbed my attention was when she stated, "Not talking about my pregnancy exaggerated the feeling I often have in construction of feeling split in two" (281). I think this piece really shows how women, like Eisenberg, felt as though they had to hide their pregnancy because they feared ridicule, or job loss. I think these are very real, articulated fears, because it was common for women in the past to be let go from jobs when pregnant or married. I enjoyed Eisenberg's perseverance as a working mother and how she was able to form a good relationship with her male co-workers who actually accepted her as a working woman and a mother. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading this piece about a woman who became an electrician. I thought it was really neat to read about how much she loved her blue-collar job. Working in this type of occupation which was a predominantly male field must have been pretty hard at times. Thankfully women had the support of other women. Pregnancy was definitely an issue for these women especially because of their higher risk of miscarriages. I can't imagine having to do certain tasks and do labor intensive work while being pregnant. The idea of miscarrying must have also led to increase stress. These women were brave and strong women for working these kinds of jobs alongside men and also being pregnant and/or mothers at the same time. -avanness<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and the “sisterhood” ideal of the women liberation movement. I think that it was really important for women to have each other while they were breaking into something that was seen as entirely male. Anyone doing something out of the ordinary would need that support system, especially from her peers. I doubt that Susan would have done and gone as far as she did without her female supporters. Obviously the men on the job weren’t very supportive, of course there is always the exception, but from what Susan describes it seems like most were unsupportive. “The journeymen were extremely hostile and unwilling to train me,” (279). About the pregnancy I would be really reluctant to speak anything about it as well. Especially after hearing what the men talk about on a day-to-day basis, “jokes about beating up wives, racist and anti-Semitic slurs, degrading remarks about each other’s girlfriends or some women who happened to pass by,” (280). If I heard those remarks every day, even being a strong woman who broke into a new field, I would be worried for myself too. Susan is still a woman and men are still going to be stronger than her no matter what profession she is in. -Morgan<br />
<br />
The most important thing that kept these women going, despite the difficult working conditions was the camaraderie among these women and without this, working in construction and life would of been more difficult. The higher graduation rate in the trade school was "owed largely to the support, information-sharing and prodding [they] gave each other" (278). They also formed groups for personal support and to discuss the varied problems they faced on the job-site. It seems when times are desperate, women have constantly bonded together to acheive a goal weather it be the right to vote, or just gaining respect and fitting in on a constuction site. They have an immense sense of pride in what they accomplish and this is demonstrated at the end of this excerpt where an older Eisenberg drove around showing her daughter the buildings she had a part in. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Connaught C. Marshner Explains What Social Conservatives Really Want, 1988 ==<br />
<br />
This is great because I have always wanted to know what social conservatives really want =) On a serious note, I think the reason I like this so much is because it was written in 1988 and these are arguments that I have personally heard people make. Honestly, what I really got out of this article was how hard it is to study and interpret history that is so recent because it really is difficult to separate your own feelings from the facts. I think it is important to see where one side is coming from, and even though I hate to admit it, I think that social conservatives, as described in this article, have some valid points (though they are few and far between). For example, women who choose to stay at home should get more credit in forms of tax breaks. <br />
On a side note -- I am curious about whom the audience of this article was intended to be and if they were trying to sway opinions in any particular way. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== The Real "Norma Rae" Tells Her Story, Crystal Lee Sutton ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Real “Norma Rae” was interesting. Sutton seemed to fall into union activity, but proved to be quite brave in the end. She really stuck to her guns throughout this piece. I was not entirely surprised when the Mill forbid the copying the “What the Company Will Do for You”. That doesn’t seem legal but it was a brave thing for Sutton to copy that letter for the National Labor Relations Board. I think that this empowerment allowed Sutton to really make a difference at this mill. She would not give up the fight even at the very end when she got fired and removed from the premises, “I was trying to get back in. I was fighting.” (277) It’s amazing how, in such a short time, she was educated and indoctrinated into the labor movement. – Caryn<br />
<br />
This piece almost reminded me of the interview I did for the paper. My interviewee's father did not agree with what Unions were doing at the time and forbade her to join them, just like Suttons mother and sister did. "[They] didn't think I ought to go" (274). However, unlike my interviewee, Sutton eventually fell into the Unions and I think the main reason was opportunity. Sutton did not have too much of this in the south and the workings conditions were not very favorable. Also, the economic status was most likely worse than my interviewee who was upper middle class. Sutton was almost certainly a lower class than this and in the south she had fewer options and was therefore forced into the Unions. This excerpt shows that economic status and location growing up definately contribute to opportunities for women. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn, I really liked Sutton's determination. She literally did everything she could to get that letter. I also liked how she knew that it was more important to get the plant unionized than for her to keep her job. She gave up her own livelihood for the greater good of the factory workers, which is really admirable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Norma Rae was an interesting piece. Most intriguing was when she looked around and thought to herself as the boss was lying about what she’d been doing trying to find reasons to fire her [talking on the phone, hanging out in the bathroom, etc] that no one stood up for her, not even ones that had picnics together. Of course these people were afraid of loosing their jobs but that’s what the boss men expected -to use that fear to prevent them from creating or joining unions. Norma Rae stood up even though her knees were shaky and it wasn’t in her plan for the day, she did it. A lot of the readings this week were about women standing up. When they stood up, they set a precedent… if she made it, so can I! -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a very brave and determined woman. She took risks because she knew what was right. Two things that I thought was interesting in this piece were the fact that after she was fired in 1973, no one would hire her until 1978. That is a long time she went without work and it shows how much employers and businesses really disliked unions and union activity. The other thing that was interesting was the fact that the plant didn't sign the union contract until 1989, almost six years after the union won an election at the plant. Again, people were very determined to keep unions out of plants and their businesses. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Crystal Lee Sutton was a powerful woman for her time and wanted to challenge the norms of male/corporate superiority. The line that struck was when Sutton was at the factory for dinner and the union organizer was pressuring her to get the letter off the bulletin board. When Eli said, "Look, Crystal, you can afford to lose a few pounds and I need that letter."(275). Was this a normal tactic used by men to get women to help the union effort? I am pretty sure it is an unwritten rule that you never call a woman fat, yet did it accomplish what Eli wanted? I think he may have said that to get the rise out of her, it would out of me but probably in retailiation against him, and it ultimately led to her being released from the company but it was a powerful move to challenge the head of corporations and I commend her for it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women on Welfare, Johnnie Tillmon, 1972==<br />
<br />
First, let me just say that I love Mrs. Tillmon. Second, I would hate to be on welfare and I hope I will never have to deal with it and by reading this piece I really felt for Mrs. Tillmon. It really helped me to see a different side of being on welfare. I see that we as a society have always looked down on those who resort to the use of welfare because we tend to think of them as inhuman. “In this country, if your any one of those things-poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare-you count less as a human being,” (268). We see such people as taking our money because they are too lazy to work, but who are we to place such stereotypes upon these people? We just assume things having never experienced them and I see that we tend to believe what the politicians say as welfare being a “cancer eating at our vitals,” (287). We never see the people as mothers or children, just poor people taking away more of our money, aliens to the little world we live in. I’ll admit that I thought that same before because I’ve never had to deal with it. I like that Mrs. Tillmon comes up with a solution though and a smart one at that: “I’d start paying women a living wage for doing the work we are already doing-child-raising and housekeeping,” (289). This way the welfare crisis would be over and housewives wouldn’t be looked down upon either. We’ve spoken of working women as being more outgoing and not seen as “true women” either. Wouldn’t that all fix itself as women got paid for their domestic work in their house? I think we would be respected more and have more opportunities. I would definitely be rich by now. =) -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan has stated. It is clear from this piece that being on welfare automatically labels a person with a negative stereotype. I think that this piece shows the difficulty that women have raising a family as a single mother, especially since the A.F.D.C, in most cases, prohibited a male in the household in order to qualify. The part that stuck out to me was Tillmon's distinction between ''a'' man and ''the'' man. She showed how the government was, in essence, controlling women who accepted this welfare. Her line, "The truth is that A.F.D.C is like a supersexist marriage. You trade in ''a'' man for ''the'' man" (287). It seems like these women who have no other options, but to be on welfare because they do not make enough money to support themselves and their children, have to loose a part of their sexuality as a consequence. This statement really grabbed me when Tillmon states, "There's one good thing about welfare. It kills your illusions about yourself, and about where this society is really at...You have to learn to fight, to be aggressive, or you just don't make it. If you can survive being on welfare, you can survive anything" (289). If this doesn't read like empowerment, I'm not sure what else does. -abratchi<br />
<br />
What I noticed most about this article was that it was published in 1972 yet it appears (by Morgan's and Abratchi's comments) that I am not the only one who forgot this while I was reading it. It doesn't say a lot for the improvement of the welfare system in this country when a statement like "In this country if you're any one of those things--poor, black, fat, female, middle-aged, on welfare- you count less as a human being. If you're all those things you don't count at all except as a statistic." ( page 286) is still just as relevant in today's society. I cant even count how many times I personally have had to remind people that most of the people in this country on welfare are children, and that the fat, lazy, unemployed story they like to bring up so often is not the norm. I hope that 38 years from now someone doesn't read a testimonial of today's Johnnie Tillmon and think the same exact thing as I have.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
==The Voice of the an Anorexic, Abra Fortune Chernik, 1995==<br />
<br />
This article scared and gave hope to me. Of course I’ve heard of anorexic and I’ve seen it, but I’ve never felt the pain like I did in reading Mrs. Chernik’s first-hand account. But through all of the pain of eating and binging she persevered through it and that was what really got through to me. Instead of beating herself up for being anorexic and not being able to fix it, she found what was wrong with society and how they saw her as a woman. As women we try to live up to unrealistic standards thinking that that is what men want and what other women will be jealous of. It’s what society has done to us, it’s damaged us. Mrs. Chernick finally broke through this when she saw herself and “observed a woman held up by her culture as the physical ideal because she was starving, self-obsessed, and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself,” (323) . Women are not suppose to be powerful and dominate of themselves, that’s what were told. Men are to be the superior and made to feel that way; maybe that is why they seem so confident in their bodies. “As long as society resists female power, fashion will call healthy women physically flawed,” (324). If only we could all learn to be “based on an image of a women warrior,” (324) and be happy as ourselves. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
I personally was touched by the article because even me and my sister have had a running joke that any girl who hasn't had an eating disorder has just failed at having one. Although it's just a joke and neither of us are really serious about it, it still would better for a girls self esteem to be a "size" 00 and never have to worry about anything like eating ever again than to be fat and ridiculed for the rest of your life. It sucks, but its' true. I felt most touched, (and most appalled by the society that I live in), by the statement "Gazing in the mirror at my emaciated body, I observed a woman held upby her culture as the physcial ideal because she was starving, self obsessed and powerless, a women called beautiful because she threatened no one except herself. Despite my intelligence, my education and my supposed manhattan sophistication I had believed all of the lies; I had almost given my life in order to achieve the sickly impotence that tis culture aggressively links with female happiness, love and success" (page 323-324). WHY is this? I don't understand how a male who isn't exactly the fittest of the fit can walk around without a shirt on (because it's hot) and have no qualms about the fact that his beer belly is hanging out, but most of my girl friends won't run outside in a sports bra because of the self consciousness attached with being shirtless (and because it substantially increases the amount of people who think it's okay to yell, holler, whistle and even take pictures of you.). It doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the man should be self-conscious but at the same time. It's a ridiculous double standard that leads to terrible diseases and someone almost killing themselves to never be skinny enough. I consecutively run for at least an hour every day of my life, and I barely fit into society's standard for clothing sizes. Beauty isn't an eating disorder, or at least if it is, can there not be a double standard about it? --Ssellers<br />
<br />
<br />
This was a ridiculously moving account of an extremely common issue. The help that she got was exceptional as well and, sadly, most girls don't get this kind of treatment. I worked in emotional and behavioral facilities for close to two years and saw girls like this all the time. A couple of the women i met didn't make it. Chernik articulates a lot of the pathology behind this disease powerfully. "I had reduced my world to a plate of steamed carrots, and over this tiny kingdom I proudly crowned myself queen." [322] This passage illustrated her desire to shrink (and ultimately disappear) not just in size, but in character, in personality and strength. The writer uses the word "impotence" to describe the effects of the disease, which struck me as a powerful characterization. The social significance of the prevalence of this disorder can't be understated. I'm sure I can't speak for all women, but I'd guess that a lot of the females who read this can identify (or could in the past) with some of the mentality associated with an unhealthy body image. The praise that she received was the scariest part. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Organizing the Farm Workers, Jessie Lopez De La Cruz==<br />
<br />
This article made me believe in not only the union fight but the power women could have in the union struggle. The line that clearly stood out to me was, "It doesn't take courage. All it takes is standing up for what you believe in,..."(285). Jessie did not want to be known as courageous, as someone who should be idiolzed but she was, for a woman to step outside societal norms and challenge practices was not common. She just wanted people to come together and fight for what they deserved and the help she had from the nurse to enter Parlier proved that many people felt the same and just wanted to see a good outcome.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Date Rape: Hysteria or Epidemic? Katie Roiphe==<br />
<br />
Although when I first started reading this piece I thought that Roiphe was making some streched claims, she did bring up a lot of great points. I think her willingness to show that the issue of "date rape" actually produces a negative view on women is interesting. She believes that "date rape" victimizes women and labels women as incapable of being sensual beings. I thought this was interesting because a lot of women in the feminist movement (first and second) were trying to move away from this Victorian stereotype of women being pure and pious. Roiphe shows that this date rape movement is actually, in some ways, harking back to this old ideal that rejects women as sexual beings. Roiphe is instead promoting that women take responsibility for their own actions and not subject themselves to this stereotype and to not be afraid to be sexual. -abratchi<br />
<br />
<br />
I would have to agree with Roiphe that when it comes to rape, some people really do go overboard with it. It is of course a very serious issue, but I at least agree with her irritation with women who are suspcious of all their male friends. Those poor guys! And rape including including more than the physical act (i.e. verbal coercion)? I think this warping of the definition can be likened to how the seriousness of rape is really downplayed in our culture today. People have it in their every day vocabulary (it's a commonly used internet and gaming term) and many people still don't realize just how traumatizing rape can be (not to mention, some people don't seem to treat it like the crime it is!). I am just wondering how we went from one extreme to the other; from hysteria to disinterest? -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==Women and Disabilities, Nancy Mairs==<br />
<br />
This article I found to be empowering for anyone who has a degenerative disease, they know they are not alone and while a cure would be ideal, they can survive and still enjoy life. The one issue I had with the article was when she discussed the use of the word, "cripple" and said, "[people]-wince at the word ''cripple'', as they do not at handicapped or disabled."(317). I do not think that is true, as someone who has personal experience with a disabled person I know they are still looked at differently when the word disabled is brought up, or someone notices their license plate with disabled tags, and people make comments. No matter how a person is classified as crippled, disabled, or handicapped there is always an ignorant person who will make a remark, but people like Nancy make the best of it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Lindsy Van Gelder Reports on the "World Series of Sex-Discrimination Suits," 1978==<br />
<br />
The idea of reverse discrimination against men is something I find quite interesting. Affirmative action programs were not meant to push men out, but were intended to give women a fair chance. I just think men felt threatened by the idea of women working at an equal level with them. I couldn't believe the disparity between men and women's pay, such as this woman: "whose annual salary was $2500 less than that of the average male in the ''Times''' Washington bureau." (P. 464) What astounded me was that one woman was more than qualified for a job, but was passed up for it multiple times, with the job going to men. The article stated, "sexism does indeed exist there, but in a genteel form in keeping with the overall tone of the paper." (P. 465) So does that make sexism okay? That it is only a "genteel form" that goes along with what the paper wants? Another thing I was shocked at and didn't understand was when the executive was talking about how he should hire the woman who was overqualified for the job. He said, "If she weren't a woman, she'd be in the bullpen right now!" (P. 465) Why didn't he just hire her? I think it was more about what was socially acceptable at the time as well as maybe his reputation? Whatever the reason, it amazes me at how restricting social norms could be, to both men and women. The worst part about this entire suit that these women of the Post brought to court is that even if the case was argued well in court, what is the most progress the women would have made...what would they have achieved? Even if they won, it would be difficult to actually institute change in that particular workplace, which is probably what kept many women from suing.. they knew it would become a dead end. --Alex M.<br />
<br />
== A Day in the Kitchen (photograph) ==<br />
<br />
When I saw this picture, I immediately had the thought that this woman is proud of her job. Just the way that she carries herself and her facial expression, she seems to take great pride in her work. And yet, we have to ask ourselves at least two things. Has she been posed? And is she actually happy with what she is doing? Her expression seems genuine, but maybe she is a woman that makes the best out of what she has. Perhaps if she had the option to become a chef or not, she would not have. It could only be through society's limited career options for blacks that she became a chef. And in the caption, it is implied that even though African American women have held jobs longer than white women, they are still discriminated against and pushed aside by those lesser experienced white women. This certainly makes one think. Do employers really look at skill? Or are they still blindsided by prejudices? They probably were when this photo was taken (1976). -- CBrau</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-04-17T19:03:59Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>THIS WEEK'S DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE PAPERS TURNED IN, NOT THE READING. You are still responsible for the reading, but the posting should be about the papers. A link to the papers will be emailed to you by Wednesday, April 14.<br />
<br />
NOTE: You do not need to post about the reading for April 15 (though you are responsible for reading it).<br />
<br />
Class discussion: We will pick up the wiki discussion during class on Tuesday, April 20.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''What patterns do you see? What experiences stand out? Did these interviews challenge or meet with the trends we've talked about in class?'''<br />
<br />
== ==<br />
<br />
I definitely see that "typical housewife and mother" trend with a majority of the women interviewed. The women who did work either had to work for economic reasons or because they really enjoyed their jobs. I think only one woman regretted working because she hadn't been able to focus on her kids and another felt bad about it at the time because it just wasn't what society expected. However, there were a few women who focused on a higher education and a professional career, whether they stayed single or got married later. With some exceptions, the trend was to work in female positions (i.e. nursing, teaching). Overall, I think it's important to note that most of these women can look back on their lives and are proud of how they lived them; even those who went with the flow and were homemakers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with CBrau. I was surprised by how many other women had experiences that were similar to the woman that I interviewed. Like CBrau stated, women seemed to enter into nursing and teaching the most, but it seemed like they were forced into these positions for lack of opportunity elsewhere. It also seems like most of the women were forced into these positions because their fathers or husbands believed that they would be starting a family and spending money on an education was wasteful. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting and amusing that in Alices' paper, Lois Wagner had miniature army corps suits and have fake machine guns and little did they know that the real women in the WAC never saw any action in battle. Also, these were just young girls and had no idea of a feminist movement or what women were going through at this particular period yet they were supporting the efforts of women, even if they were too young to understand. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I loved the story about the WAC suits! Normally you would think of boys putting on uniforms and imitating soldiers, and yet here was a little girl doing it. I've honestly never thought about little girls being interested in the military or what children had to balance during WWII ("fun and fear"). -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I saw many similarities between the women who were interviewed including the roles they had as mothers, wives, and women in the workforce and society. I definitely saw the pattern of many women who worked in the domestic sphere who also sometimes worked in careers outside the home. Most of the women seemed to have had children of the baby boom generation or were baby boomers themselves. In Dvorak's paper, the woman she interviewed challenged some of the trends of the time by focusing on her education and career of dentistry rather than on finding a husband and starting a family right away. I also noticed in Rowley's paper, the woman got a divorce about the time in the 1960s that we talked about in class when there seemed to be a high divorce rate. I think it's interesting so see the similarities between the people who were interviewed but good to also note that all of their stories are still unique in their own way. -Avanness<br />
<br />
The similarities between the women interviewed are clearly defined, many became mothers and housewives right after graduation and a few had careers but the majority of women thought they should fulfill the roles they were told to. They produced the children who led further reforms for women and I saw in a few papers such as Mary Ann's the women, who produced the baby boomers, did not have time to be politically active and brushed it aside. It reminded me of the woman I interviewed who admitted they were too tied up in their worlds to pay attention to outside influences. In a few papers I thought the women who were single mothers and able to support themselves and children were leaders of the Women's Movement even if they did not openly admit it. Those women started the trend towards independence and without their mark in the workplace and challenging "male dominated roles" women may not have acheived what they did in the 1960-1970s era. I agree with Avanness it is important to note that even with all the similarities all of the women were exceptional in their stories. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with the sentiments already expressed here, that the majority of women who were interviewed and written about had similar experiences and how interesting that is. It also seemed that many of these women remembered feeling alone in their struggle to maintain the family and the struggles to either work or not to work. I find this very interesting because many of these women had friends who were having similar struggles, but I think that earlier in the 20th century talking about and sharing the daily struggles that individuals went through was not considered appropriate. I would have thought that these women would not have felt so secluded and alone in their struggle, but I think they lived in a different world than our generation does now and I think technology plays a major role in that openness that is seen now. These women were not raised in a technologically based culture and the technology that was around literally was new and never seen before which sometimes made life more difficult than it needed to be. <br />
I also found it interesting that these women remember the role of women as housewives and mothers, and some of them had fonder views of those roles than others. A few thought of housework as something other than unpaid labor (just something they had to do that didn’t affect the structure and stability of the family) and I think that those would remembered it as something they were expected to do rather than what they wanted to do voluntarily seemed to remember it less fondly. Would anyone else agree? Maybe I’m reading too far into things. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
<br />
As I read through these papers, many of us focused on working women because I think that is something that changed continuously throughout the 20th century. The trends of women working never remained the same; they changed almost decade to decade. It seemed that many of the women interviewed returned to work after raising their children and I think for most women that was a way of raising self-esteem, that women were capable of being both a wife and a career women. I think the idea of women not working because of the influence it would have on their children was another recurring trend. In Taylor Brann’s paper, she talked about a woman who left her job in the 1980s to take care of her children. It was almost socially unacceptable for women to even think of balancing work and a career at the time, espeically when the focus was transitioning more and more towards the family. Although I say that most experiences seemed similar, I think some stood out, such as Meg’s interview and Fitch’s interview. In both these interviews, the women they interviewed seemed to have no problem finding jobs or even moving into the professional world and I think that was definitely a step in the right direction. These women seemed to have defied some of the odds against women, especially for Meg's interviewee, who worked as a dental professional. Another noticeable feature was the jobs women traditionally took on. Many of them were related to nursing, or clerical work. Along with everyone else, it amazed me that although these women lived their life at different times in the 20th century, their experiences were quite similar, with history being passed down from generation to generation. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
First, I’d like to add a detail to my own paper that was in my footnotes, but since the footnotes did not show up in Google Docs, I want to say it here, because I think it’s important. Why exactly Lois left Mary Washington is uncertain, since in previous conversations I’ve had with her, she claimed that the school kicked her out for getting married. Though, if it’s true that the school kicked her out, I’m under the suspicion that it’s more likely because she was pregnant. However, when I sat down with her in the interview, she changed the story to the one presented in the main body of my paper. In the long run, it doesn’t change the fact that she has no regrets about never finishing college, but it would effect how we view the college’s policy towards such a situation. <br />
<br />
On a different topic, I found it interesting to see the women’s reactions to the feminist movement. Ms. Blalock outright opposed the movement, not because she objected to women working or equality between men and women, but because she saw it as detrimental to children. There is no denying the authority she has on the subject of children, having been an educator for so long, but it makes me think of our earlier discussions of how someone always sees the American family as being on the brink of failure. Other women, like Deb Lee and Sue Ward, don’t seem to particularly dislike the movement, but it did not appear to really play much into their lives, which judging from my own interview as well, seems typical. - Alice W<br />
<br />
<br />
Ms. Bobbi Blalock had an interesting outlook on women’s view of the family. She seems to have traditional views based in older generations. Though this is not prevalent in the other interviews, it does seem striking because she placed a strong importance on the woman being in the home and that offering security to children. It does make me question if the brashness of the 1960’s and 70’s was a little too over the top for some women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time. Working mothers have struggled with maintaining both for many decades, but for the most part (aside from WWII), society was against them working. As was mentioned in the lecture (which I wish I could have used in my paper), society’s view on working women began to change in the 1960s and 1970s. Some women, as the papers showed, managed to balance work and family and do it successfully, and for once they had the backing of the public while they were doing it. Daycares, for instance, were a great help in maintaining this balance. However, many mothers still struggled with the balance, and while they had society more willing to support them working, they now had a new ideal to live up to. My interviewee, for instance, drove herself into depression in her attempt to “have it all,” and she believes that the media helped trick women into thinking they can do it all. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It is interesting how strikingly similar the experiences of many of the interviewed women were. Among the slew of really well written papers that I read, I focused on three in particular, Taylor Braun's, Catherine Brau's, and Ellen Fritz's paper. These three interviewees shared a similar view to each other in the fact that they rejected or simply cared not to participate in the NOW movement and women's liberation. In Braun and Fritz's papers the women felt that they wanted to focus on raising their children and maintaining a healthy family. In Brau's paper, her interviewee had very little time to devote to the women's lib movement, though, like my interview subject, she was involved in the anti-war movement. These women expressed many of the concerns and comments that we have been discussing in class about a women's balance between domestic and public life, with their family and work, and the roles they played in all of these arenas. I appreciated how some of the other papers focused on the academic efforts that their interviewees pursued. My interviewee also received a college degree and returned to school later in life to pursue her law degree. What I thought was really interesting is that my interviewee felt that she did not live the “typical” life that many baby boomer women did, but after reading these papers, her answers turned out to be so similar to many of the others. I agree with Megan to an extent about how the women fulfilled the roles that they were “supposed to” fill, but some of them really seemed to want that life. In Taylor’s paper, her interviewee felt guilty and wrong for returning to work once the children were in school. It seems that some of the women did not want to fulfill the typical roles but others seemed content in their actions. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Coming off what Caryn said I think it is interesting that her subject felt that her experiences were not typical yet this project showed that alot of women had similar experiences. I think it reflects that perhaps some women felt they were alone in there desire to continue there life after children and marriage. It reminded me of Betty Friedans article where she found women discussing this "unnameable problem" as if it were taboo. I know my interviewee felt isolated in her experiences as a working mother and eventually a divorcee yet this study shows that many women were dealing with the same issues. But i do think it is interesting that the subjects would feel like there experience was atypical of other women, yet in reality it may not have been. -Emma<br />
<br />
Like Caryn, I noticed that a lot of the women had similar life experiences, or that there were at least some common themes among a lot of the papers. The fact that so many women were happy being housewives always strikes me, because I always revert to the image of the depressed and oppressed mid-century wife and mother. Yes, some women felt restricted by that life, but not all, and we shouldn't forget that many women were happy when we look at what, to many of us, appears to have been a pretty limiting situation. Socioeconomic status also played a huge role in these women's lives in terms of the education and opportunities open to them but also in the expectations set for them. For example, Women whose parents had some money were expected to go to college, meaning that they probably weren't marrying while still in high school. Finally, many of the women broke traditional norms in different ways, from not marrying at all, to going to dental school, to raising children as a single parent. The big name leaders of the women's rights movement did a lot, but it's really the collective actions of all of these everyday women that created the more egalitarian society we have today, yet most of them seem largely unaware of the changes they were helping to bring about. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann how it can be a little surprising to hear how women could be happy being housewives. I think sometimes in class we forget that many people were happy with society's expectations. This ties back into what we talked about earlier in the semester with paid vs. unpaid work. It is interesting how some of the woman took the role of being a mother as the focus on their life, while others did not seem to compare it to a job at all. There seems to be a little difference in how some of the women who raised kids view their life versus the way those who choose not to, though really each woman is just as much of an individual regardless of what choices they made. -J Rowley<br />
<br />
Even if women were limited to specific fields when trying to obtain work, I found that many were working for at least a point in their lives. Many of these women were middle class and attended high school and even college. Most women got jobs after college or after high school and either kept working or got married. It seems like a fair amount of women stayed in the home, but it was becoming less expected of them and many worked even if they were also raising families. There were a few single mothers and they worked mostly because they had no choice and were the sole provider's for their family. Working women were certainly becoming more prominent. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Many of these women had similar life experiences regarding their role in the latter half of the 20th century. What I found fascinating was that the women that had children at an early age often sought a career after their children were older. These women found a second life at the age of 40 or 45 in which they had raised their family and now had the opportunity and freedom to pursue their dreams. Additionally, these women have the benefit of life experiences which would affect their choices for the future. The professional women who had gone to college right from high school often waited to their late 20's or early 30's to start a family and then were either forced to choose between their career or their kids; or to put their children into daycare. They are also more financially secure and stable than the women who married at a young age. Who's to say which option is better. Women, unlike men in society, are forced to be put in the position of making these decisions and living with any ramifications. - EFritz<br />
<br />
So, reading through a couple of these papers, I started to notice a trend around the third paper of women who were being (what is recognized today as) oppressed, but never really felt that it was that much of an issue to them. By that I mean, most of these women recognized that "women" in general were not permitted the same opportunity as men, but that it wouldn't affect them (Holman’s paper even says “Although she never felt restricted from any job she desired, she did observe that there were only so many positions open to women.8” which I think perfectly exemplifies my point). And of these women, I have to say, it seems to have produced a biased opinion that it worked out for every woman. I feel like these women in particular were very successful in their lives. They are now fairly old, have lived a long life, and seem to not fret and worry about the money or other particulars in their lives now. Maybe their life wasn't always easy, but it still says something that they made it to be over the age of 55. I think sometimes it is forgotten that that is a huge life accomplishment, to be old. I think it also may have been to the benefit of these women to ignore the fact that the oppression of women may affect them, because if they ignore it, then they can surpass it. As all of the women who are mentioned in the 4 papers, (Holman, Brau, Whiteaker, Makarios) in particular that I noticed this trend of not noticing the oppression of themselves in, have done. It also really surprises me that no one above me seemed to have noticed this. –ssellers<br />
<br />
As most people have stated, I noticed a lot of similarities between a lot of the papers I read. I noticed that a lot of women worked and attended school. After doing my own interview and comparing it with the trends discussed in class, it feels like more women were able to attend school than actually did. I agree with a lot of what Taylor stated above, "Some women, including the one I interviewed, struggled with maintaining their careers and being mothers at the same time." This was a trend I noticed as well among the papers. It appears that a lot of these women who were interviewed either had to work or chose to work, but there was some ultimate cost to it. Whether it was relationships or their own health. I think that Sarah brings up a good point that I myself did not catch until reading her post. A lot of these women are old and their opinion is biased. My interviewee for example never once stated that her situation was hard, even though she worked as a full-time nurse, with four children and a husband who was a doctor and in the navy. I think that a lot of time as older people look back, things might not seem as bad as they were. -abratchi<br />
<br />
There seemed to be trend in which the women in these interviews maintained motherhood and work so well in spite of society saying that you cannot achieve both. These women overcame challenges, heartaches, and divorce and at the same time embraced life, love, and raised their children. The women coming out of middle class families had more opportunities. I recognized the shift in expectations and push for oneself to go to college in these women’s experiences also. But I agree with Sarah, these are reflective memories, so we can't get a total feeling of what that person felt at that time, it's more glossed over sometimes. I think it's important to remember that we only captured pieces of their lives in the interview. There was a lot of really interesting things that I couldn't all fit in 2 pages, did anyone else have that problem? -MHimes<br />
<br />
I found it fascinating that despite the geographical location, many of the women who shared similar socioeconomic statuses had similar experiences. For example, Mrs. Ripley, who Megan interviewed, seemed to be a well-off woman from the South. She had a very similar story to the upper class Northern woman that I interviewed. The main difference I found was that the Northern woman I interviewed was very progressive, while the Southern woman Megan interviewed seemed to be more conservative. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
A very surprising trend that I noticed was how easily many of these women would drop what they were doing to get married! Alice Wagner, for example, described the life of Lois Wagner who was attending Mary Washington and quit school in her junior year to get married. This is similar to the person I interviewed who got a highly prestigious grant to do medical research at the Rockefeller Institute for sickle cell anemia and methadone, but met her husband and chose not to attend Rockefeller Institute. These women put so much work towards their education, and they just stop as soon as they got married. That is why I am not surprised that the U.S. Government eventually saw women as a misused resource. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I noticed many of these women working as secretaries or doing work in the clerical field. Two worked as secretaries in the government and these were jobs that were deemed as "acceptable" by society. This seems to follow the trend of what we learned in class in that women worked, but they were often confined to specific jobs. Nursing seemed to be another one of those "accepted" positions and through the papers, it seemed as if it was very female dominated. It seems like after and around and during the war, women were confined by societies expectations to specific jobs, but over the years, thos restrictions lifted and they have spread their skills. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I found a great variety in the interview papers that we as a class created. In some interviews the women held tight to those typical roles of women in the early 20th century as mothers and wives. Others challenged the trends, either by fate or their own ambitions and tried to maintain an independent and family lifestyle at the same time. I noticed a pattern in the lives of the women as they fought the battle of being a working women or a housewife. These were the two extremes to being a woman, and many tried to have both but more times than not returned to being a housewife in the long run. A few challenged the trends of being a “normal” housewife by either unintentional manner’s like Rowley’s and Smethurst’s interviewee’s did by trying to balance being a mother and an independent women. Both, while having children, continued with their education and motherly duties. Other’s such as Leckner’s interviewee and my grandmother conformed to the prescribed roles at the time; marrying young, having children, and never working. While even others were neither part of one or the other extreme. Brau’s interviewee was the perfect example of a women who was somewhere in the middle. She did not get married, even after the loss of her finance and earning herself a degree. At the same time though, she took care of the household at a young age and then always took care of family when they fell ill. The experience that stood out to me most was that Brau’s interviewee was seen as “self-fish” when she finally started taking care of herself and spending money on herself. One the most important life lesson’s I’ve learned so far has been to first take care of myself and then others. We as women always put others before ourselves and sacrifice our own happiness. No one should have to do that and that was just what these women were battling with, trying to make themselves and their family happy at the same time; a battle that is still fought on today in the hearts of many women. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading all of these interview assignments. For me, this has been the most interesting part of the course because these women who were interviewed provide us with a direct link to the past and reflect many of the themes we have covered. The main theme I recognized in most of these are the stereotypes in the roles of women, more specifically their role in the house. It seems like most were comfortable with being wives, mothers, and domestic oriented. Another trend related to what we have talked about in class was the role of women working during World War II. It was a temporary role for women and when their husbands came back it seems many were willing to go back to the way it was before. The most interesting quote I liked was in Emma Pecks paper, where her grandmother got married after WWII because it was "the fashionable thing to do." The movement to suburbia was a big thing too that some mentioned. Many of these papers reminded me of "Leave it to Beaver," just from looking at how communities functioned. Another thing was the lack or not lack of jobs available for women depending on what period of time they lived as well as the types. Overall these interviews gave a great perspective of womens' achievements, oppressions, and have made me gain more respect for the contributions of their lifetime. --David Fitch<br />
<br />
While each one was interesting and enlightening, I did not see a single uniting pattern in these interviews. I think with the varying ages, locations, socio-economic backgrounds, etc. finding one would be unlikely. Each woman had her own ideas about woman's issues. Just like we learned about in class, how once women got the right to vote, they did not vote exactly the same - no two women, no two people are going to feel exactly the same about education, working outside the home, motherhood, marriage and a host of other issues. However, all the interviews were alike in their richness and insight. I think the interviews agree with we have learned about it class. Historically, the woman was usually at home, raising the children, completely out of the public realm. During the lives of these women, that was becoming increasingly only part of women’s experiences. Some women were single and worked, some were married and worked; Married women, mothers worked or stayed at home or both. The experiences of women were becomingly increasingly varied, as seen through the very diverse lives of our interviewees. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I found the different experiences interesting, but the theme of education united a lot of the essays I read (O'Keefe, Fitch, Whiteaker, Levine, and others). I think just the fact that all of us, the interviewers, are ourselves benefiting from higher education means that the interviewees that we chose to interview (whether we're related to them, or they are close family friends, or other convenient arrangement) are probably in a similar socioeconomic class and probably have similar views as to the importance of education. In other words, just the fact that we are the interviewers means that a common theme in the stories of the people we interview will be education of some sort or another. Most subjects participated in some sort of college (whether 4-year or 2-year) or sometimes job training (such as secretarial school), and their views on the importance of education may very well have been passed on to us, the interviewers and the recipients of this history. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
This assignment is really interesting, especially getting to see how varied these experiences are. Naturally, the nature of the class and assignment contributes to the impression that there was a sense of comprehension of shifting ideologies, but i do believe that this is also an essential part of the experience of being a woman in the 20th century in America. Several themes run through these interviews and tie together different sets. The choice between college and marriage or work and children appeared in several and that these choices were often felt to have played integral roles in their association with an identity. Again - this can probably be attributed in part to the nature of the assignment. I was interested that a Valium-ish "mother's little helper" appeared in one of the papers. In our class discussions about the post-WWII move to the suburbs/domesticity/baby boom, I couldn't help thinking of the Rolling Stones song. -Erin B</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-08T02:32:21Z<p>Ebethel: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement. There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement. Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, "Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand's in the lion's mouth, it's just better to pat it on the head." (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels. I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times. I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry. What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman. Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened. It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely. I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea. Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers. It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help. EFritz<br />
<br />
Wow, lots of comments on this. The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him. The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out. The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me. Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn't that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman <br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
We've read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I'm a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn't exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal's arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I've encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether! --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she's asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that 'machismo' is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world. I'm always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin b<br />
<br />
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women's rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women's groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
When this article spoke of "Brownskin" models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter's school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones. Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. "How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn't protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain." I'm sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr's death was felt by many across the nation as well I'm sure. "Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn't just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights." Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class. Mrs.Craig's point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn't really know how bad it really was in the South. There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn't agree with the war she didn't protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, "Look, this is history. We need to be in this." Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Haidarali, African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==<br />
<br />
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-08T02:31:48Z<p>Ebethel: /* Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement. There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement. Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, "Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand's in the lion's mouth, it's just better to pat it on the head." (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels. I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times. I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry. What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman. Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened. It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely. I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea. Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers. It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help. EFritz<br />
<br />
Wow, lots of comments on this. The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him. The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out. The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me. Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I agree with abratchi.The Chicanas were vehemently fighting for control over their own bodies, but isn't that what every woman wants, regardless of race or class? --Anna Holman <br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
We've read a bit previously about the double burden of black women, and it seemed to me that this description of triple discrimination is really the same thing. I'm a bit skeptical of the third designation, that of job discrimination--not that it doesn't exist (for of course it does), but rather because of the implication that this discrimination is only an issue with Chicanas, and it almost seems that Vidal is trying to elevate the issue to seem as if Chicanas are more oppressed than women of other minorities, which is not entirely true (much depends on region, etc). I found Vidal's arguments much more successful when she focused on the sterilization, an instance of extreme racism and sexism that is specific to the Chicana community. It was interesting to hear some of the same rhetoric that I've encountered in feminist arguments published last year, much less 40 years ago. At one point I forgot it was the early seventies altogether! --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I think that Vidal is simply explaining the obstacles and prejudices Chicanas face. It sounds like she's asserting their cultural identity and drawing attention to specific ways in which they as women, Chicanas and working class are oppressed or discriminated against and not necessarily comparing this to the tribulations of other women or minorities. I loved that she points out that 'machismo' is a product of the cultural introduction of European sex roles to the new world. I'm always happy to read about all of the civil rights movements inspired by the African American Civil Rights movement. -Erin <br />
<br />
I find it interesting when I read pieces about women of different ethnicities speak about women's rights. A lot of times women of ethnicities other than white were not able to come together in the fight for equal rights with those white women because of the color of their skin. They do seem to have many of the same issues, however. In this piece Mirta Vidal talks about being seen as inferior to the opposite sex, women fought to end all forced sterilizations, and the Chicana women were even concerned about having childcare available to them. I find it so interesting that many blacks and Hispanic women had to form their own women's groups for equal rights when they were facing many of the same problems that other white women were at the same time. Amy V.<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
When this article spoke of "Brownskin" models, I was not aware of how racially ambiguous they appeared. [http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1364/1294691395_9722feeb99.jpg Sylvia Fitt]--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter's school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones. Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. "How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn't protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain." I'm sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr's death was felt by many across the nation as well I'm sure. "Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn't just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights." Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class. Mrs.Craig's point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn't really know how bad it really was in the South. There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn't agree with the war she didn't protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, "Look, this is history. We need to be in this." Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Haidarali, African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==<br />
<br />
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-04-08T01:54:43Z<p>Ebethel: /* Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Civil Rights Activists, Rosa Parks and Virginia Foster Durr ==<br />
<br />
"Everybody knew everbody else was lying, but to save face, they had to lie" (p. 225). We have all heard the story of Rosa Parks and the bus boycotts, just with less detail. I was definitely not expecting the role that white women played. I suppose it makes sense to focus on those who were being directly affected by the Civil Rights Movement, but perhaps these boycotts would not have been as successful without the help of various white women. They generously offered rides to black women to and from work despite the chance of getting a ticket, something that could have helped keep the morale up for the strike. White women also understood the important of keeping black women's involvement in the boycotts a secret. It was obvious that these black women needed their jobs and being a part of the boycott would surely get them fired. I'm just wondering if all the white women who offered a ride or kept a secret agreed with the boycotts or even with the Civil Rights Movement? Durr is clearly biased in favor of civil rights, but maybe some women were just being nice and did not agree with civil rights or even understand what the women were boycotting against. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I enjoyed this article because it shows the role that white women played in the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement in the South. It is interesting because the initial thought one generally has when thinking of the 1950s South is the hatred whites had towards African Americans and the fear that caused in the African American community. However, what this article illustrates is the fact that many white women were as active in the Civil Rights movement as they could be. I seriously doubt that there are statistics regarding the number of white women who helped Black women in the bus boycott because of the fear that was in both parties. It is interesting because the white women would lie and say that they didn’t support the boycott or help the black women. And the black women would lie and say that they were not participating, they just needed to take care of a sick child (or something like that). I am curious about how widespread this actually was, but I guess we will never know because of how secretive these women had to be. I am curious if the husbands of these white women were aware of their participation and support. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
What Rosa Parks did was defy a social norm, that blacks were supposed to move when whites told them to do so. To our generation that seems ignorant but I remember my mother saying that she never went to school with an African American and that it was just expected you didn’t mix the two. My dad said they had two theaters one for blacks and one for whites but they never thought twice about it. Rosa Parks along with other civil rights activists were going against these unjust socially accepted policies that had been legalized. The idea of integration seemed like a social taboo and if you crossed it then you were looked at unjustly as well. I think this is why the white women giving rides kept it secret. The black women may have feared loosing their jobs if their employers knew they were involved in the boycott. -- Mhimes<br />
<br />
While I read this excerpt, I could only imagine Rosa Parks demeanor during her ordeal on the bus. She seemed so calm to publicly break the segregation laws for the bus. I'm sure her demeanor was quite calm and collected, with Parks being perfectly content to say no. The police arrested Rosa Parks on "suspicion," and even with that, Parks was unsure of what she was being arrested for. It just surprised me how corrupt the police were at the time; they did everything within their power, and even beyond that, to ensure that life was made harder for African Americans. Did nobody see a problem with that? Or did people just accept it? Also, what happened to white people who had dissenting opinions about the corruptness and the unfair treatment of African Americans at the time? I feel like nobody really spoke up about the injustices that were occurring, for fear of what might happen to them. I think it is interesting how the white women actually believed the African American women and men about why they were walking instead of riding the bus; it was because they were truly boycotting, but the boycotters lied to keep their jobs. "The white people really believed that. They didn't see through it all."(P. 225) Both the whites and African Americans were working together to help the boycott, yet neither group knew they were working in conjunction with the other. This was maybe the first time that whites and Blacks were working together for a common cause: civil rights. However, neither group even knew it. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Rosa was sitting in her right section, the back section that was reserved to the blacks, and was then asked to move. I really don’t understand what gave the bus driver the right to ask her to move. She had done everything that was required of her and she hadn’t broken any rules. “After I had paid my fare and occupied a seat, I didn’t think I should have to give it up,” (222). Rosa was in the “right” section, had paid her fare, and was sitting down (she had paid for her seat). Just because white people came onto the bus and didn’t have a seat, the black people shouldn’t have been made to move. If black people had come onto the bus and didn’t have seats, they would have been made to stand in the aisle, so why shouldn’t have the white people been made too? Of course I am thinking in modern terms probably, it just seems so unfair. Just like the black and white people did, I would have lied about who was a part of bus boycott. I can understand why a majority of the white community would have lied for the black participates too. This way the black servants wouldn’t be locked up and they could continue to provide their services to the white families that employed them and in turn they would continue to receive a weekly check. Both parties would benefit from the unsaid agreement of lying for the other. “Everybody knew everybody else was lying,” (225). -Morgan<br />
<br />
Like several people above stated, I really liked the camaraderie that developed between some black and white women during the bus boycott. Although I'm sure this wasn't the case for every white woman in Montgomery, many of the white employers of black domestics pretended not to realize that their employees were participating in the boycott. This seems to me whatever facade the white women put up was just a thin disguise for the support of integration. Otherwise, why else would the women give their employees rides to work, or excuse frequent tardiness? Like the article stated, everyone knew everyone else was lying about their participation or support of the Montgomery bus boycott.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I liked how Anna referred to the relationship between black and white women as a camaraderie. I think that really captures the essence of this piece. I think another important thing that this piece does is show how black women HAD to work, yet they also felt that they had to participate in the civil rights movement if they wanted things to change. The relationship that developed between white and black women in this particular case is quite remarkable, but it makes me wonder, is this type of thing common, or is this just a special case? The civil rights movement seems to be flagged with a series of things that make one wonder, why did that happen? Rosa Parks did not appear to be the type of woman to get arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a city bus, yet she was. It also appears unlikely that white women would help black women, especially, I would think, out of fear. Yet, these things happened, as this piece showed. It helped me realize that there was more the civil rights movements than blacks fighting for black rights. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I have to add my two cents to the conversation about the relationship between white and black women during the bus boycott. A few people have pointed out that the situation was a positive one, a time when white women willingly helped their black employees support the bus boycott even if neither party directly admitted to it. Maybe I'm just more cynical, but I don't believe that most of the white women wanted to be helping the civil rights movement. These were not women who had showed any interest in equality before the boycott, and the "roar of indignation" over the issue only came when the mayor suggested women stop employing their black maids. In my view, Montgomery's white women were far more influenced by the domestic ideals of the day than civil rights protests. Black servants kept white homes neat and white children out of the mud so that white women could look their judgmental neighbors in the eye. Had the black women stopped coming to work, white wives and mothers would have had to do complete the never ending list of domestic chores required of "respectable women" themselves or risk letting some things fall through the cracks and losing some of the esteem of their neighbors. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann about not believing that most of the white women wanted to help in the civil rights movement. There are always going to be those going along with the status quo, especially involving race relations of the times in and around the civil rights movement. Many white women did NEED those black women to come to work for them for their own reasons, not just to help out those black women who needed a job. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really agree with everything that everyone above me mentioned... especially the part about how we all know the story of Rosa Parks but never in such detail or especially told in such a novel manner. I think it was pretty amazing how much effort it took to cover up the boycott and it was interesting to think about how the white women covered up the boycotting action of their domestic servants because they knew that "the black women needed those jobs" (page 226). What a great potential sacrifice all parties involved were making in order to accomplish a goal that they wanted. -ssellers<br />
<br />
The line that struck me in this piece was from Mary, "Well, I tell you, Mr. Cliff, I tell you, I learned one thing in my life and that is, when your hand's in the lion's mouth, it's just better to pat it on the head." (226). The black women knew, like ssellers said, they needed the meager paying jobs in order to survive and it was better to appease the whites than fight them. This also made me relate to Martin Luther King Jr.'s teachings he preached non-violence so in a way the women were acting on his words by not fighting the whites and doing what they needed to in order to get by. This piece made me wonder if without Rosa Parks defiance would MLK Jr. have been as prominent without his speeches on the bus boycott? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As everyone else has stated, this article was really informative on many levels. I guess the first thing that struck me was the fact that even though I had heard many times the story of Rosa Parks, it had always been presented that Rosa was just an unsuspecting black woman in the South who was pushed around just one too many times. I cheered for Rosa standing up to the bigotry. What I didn’t know was Rosa Parks was no ordinary “typical” black woman. Instead, she was a Civil Rights activist who stood her ground when her civil liberties were being threatened. It makes no difference to the circumstances surrounding her arrest and I still cheer her strength, but the facts were never presented completely. I always wondered how they got that famous picture of the white cop fingerprinting Rosa Parks; now I have some idea. Second, when learning of the bus boycott, I was never aware of the camaraderie between the black working women and their white employers. It seems to me that this was due to a combination of things; first the close relationship a number of these women must have had within the household and second the high level of reliability white women had for their help. EFritz<br />
<br />
Wow, lots of comments on this. The first thing that struck me was, when Mr. Nixon was trying to get Mrs. Parks out of jail, he needed to call white friends to help him. The white police officers could just deny him the opportunity to talk to Rosa or to bail her out. The level of prejudice and discrimination in the south through these years is so deep that it kind of never fails to surprise me. Just to begin with changing the laws of segregation and discrimination must have seemed like a small first step in light of such major social ignorance and prejudice. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Mirta Vidal Reports on the Rising Consciousness of the Chicana About Her Special Oppression, 1971 ==<br />
<br />
What caught my attention in this article was the forced sterilization that some Chicanas experienced. In class I was wondering why somebody would sterilize a woman without her permission, and Vidal gives one reason: "forced sterilization [is] justified by the viciously racist ideology that the problems of La Raza are caused by Raza women having too many babies." So, the procedure was a permanent birth control. I am hardly pro-abortion, but to have the ability to bear children taken away like that would truly be devastating. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
To go off of what CBrau was saying -- I wish I could say that I was surprised by the forced sterilization, I think it comes out of a racist ideology, and the fact that during this time there was a massive inflow of immigrants into the United States. This led to nativism among the Anglo population and fear that their jobs would be taken away. During this time, there was also a lot of scholarship that argued that the Anglo population was having fewer children while Chicana and other Latin American groups continued to have the same number of children, so a fear that the white population would eventually be overtaken existed as well. I think its important to understand the struggles of these women on the three levels: their nationality, the fact that they were workers, and the fact that they were women. Their unique circumstances meant that they specific demands, and I think that the fact that they could recognize this and come together is very powerful. I also think that this is something that is still being dealt with today. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
“Chicana motherhood should not preclude educational, political, social, and economic advancement,” (455). I felt like the chicana women were making this notion of being oppressed was new and exclusively to them. Having to choose between motherhood and their own ambitions was not a new idea at all. Women, of all races, felt like this and had been fighting for it. I don’t mean to demean Latin American women in any way; I merely think there were a little late in this thinking. Along with this premise of feeling like they were the only ones broken, black women had been facing the same triple oppression “as members of an oppressed nationality, as workers, and as women,” (455). Once again this feeling was nothing new to the world, to the Chicana’s who were just realizing their feeling of adversity, yes, but to other women they were late to the party. The sterilization freaked me out too, that was something I've only heard about happening in Africa. Very scary. La Raza means The Race by the way. -Morgan<br />
<br />
As difficult as it is to beleive this, I agree with Erin. The forced sterilization in large part came out of racism and oppression. They are severley oppressed and do not have access to freedoms that would certainly make their lives more manegable. The americans felt threatened by the massive influx of mexicans and jumped to the conlcusion of forced of forced sterilization as the way to prevent their population from multiplying. I wonder if they ever thought this matter through or automatically jumped to thinking forced sterilization was the best way to operate? Obvioiusly, it is not humane. When it mentions that these Raza women faced triple oppression, it reminded me of the oppression black women were facing. The Raza women were oppressed because of their nationality, as workers and women. Then there are the black women who were oppressed as women, the color of their skin, and occasionally in the workplace. Non-white women are certainly having a difficult time! -afrisk<br />
<br />
Everyone above has commented on the remark made by Vidal concerning sterilization. Although it seems shocking, this was a common practice throughout the 20th century in most states. Virgina ranked second among the 50 states for most forced sterilizations on both men and women (it is also good to note that it was not just among minorities either). It is all matter of eugenics and perfecting the human race (it is more familiar in regards to Hitler). I think that this piece is trying to show that women of all races were experiencing some form of oppression and desire for control of their own bodies. I think it is easy to brush off cases like this when it involves a minority, but it causes one to stop and think, what are the reasons for this need among minorities? I think it comes back to the idea that people often viewed minorities, especially women, as inferior. I think that Vidal is trying to show that there is an equal need among Chicanos women for birth control, child care, movement away from racist or sexists practices, etc. that is also common among many white urban women and African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Vidal’s point about Chicanas facing triple discrimination is important, because discrimination is never a simple cut and dry thing. If you solve the problem of class, that does not solve the problems of gender or race or sexuality. I think this is what made, and still makes, the push for equal rights so difficult. How does one choose what one focuses on in the fight? In the Hispanic community, Chicanas were told by Chicano leaders not to join the women’s liberation movement because “it is an ‘Anglo thing’” (455). Chicanas recognized that women’s liberation was not just for middle class white women, it was for them too. The men in the community were not offering much support, so Vidal, by connecting “machismo” to Anglo chauvinism, compares Chicanos to white males, and I’m sure that Hispanic men did not want to be connected with the very people they were fighting against. – Alice W<br />
<br />
This reading is a good reminder that the rights movements were about more than just African Americans and white women, though those are the movements that tend to be recognized the most. In this case, Chicanas were challenging both a racial and sexual social oppression. I think it’s interesting that they were encouraged away from activism because it was considered an “Anglo thing,” at least according to the men who wanted them to stay out it. Considering the first national convention for Raza women was in 1971, how could anyone even have gotten away with that argument, when African Americans had been in the public eye fighting for their social equality for many years? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== "More Than a Lady" Ruby Doris Smith Robinson and Black Women's Leadership in the SNCC, Cynthia Fleming ==<br />
<br />
Ruby Doris Smith Robinson commanded attention to herself and her affiliations like a man would. My favorite comment seems to sum up Robinson, “she had 100 percent effective shit detector,” (552). I believe this makes her a very intimidating figure to men and women alike, that’s saying something during a time when women and African American’s were both oppressed. Robinson may have been a very intimidating woman, but at the same time she didn’t ask for recognition. I suspect that she was such a strong woman that she needed no approval from anyone. To a degree I understand this because she didn’t want to make a big deal out of the fact that she was a woman running the SNCC, but I think that she should have realized that some recognition would have further propelled the organization too. Being the head of SNCC and an imitating figure, Rob was “accepted as one of the boys,” (555). I don’t think that this was a good or a bad thing. She commanded the authority and attention as a man, but I think she unconsciously lost some of her femininity too. She must have been torn with her standings, she wanted to be taken seriously like a man but at the same time she keep up her appearance, retaining some of her femininity. How could she have been happy? I feel like Robinson was fighting a battle within herself between being a strong leader: a manly figure and being a sensitive mothering figure, like she is biologically programmed to be. A tough choice for sure. -Morgan<br />
<br />
It bothered me that the women activists were attributed male qualities just because they didn't completely mold to the feminine ideals of the time. As the article stated, Robinson still completely embraced her femininity; she still took great care that her appearance and clothing were very ladylike & proper, even when shipping off to jail. If she didn't truly embrace who she was as a woman, she wouldn't have cared enough to do this. It also disturbed me that since Robinson's voice was powerful and commanding, it was automatically compared to a man's voice. If anything is aggressive and powerful, then it ''must'' belong to a man, and consequently must be unnatural for a woman to possess. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Robinson obviously found her passion within the civil rights movement, and it's sad that she didn't live to see all the progress that's been made. The fact that, as a woman, she had to continue to justify her place within the leadership of the movement betrays how pervasive the white, middle class ideal of woman as submissive housewife became. As the author notes, Robinson's actions "fit comfortably into an established tradition of black female assertiveness" (pg 557), a trait we've seen in several other readings. But in this era, black women were told to be more "feminine" when they tried to speak out or organize. Ideals, quite obviously, are not one size fits all. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds" and "More than a Lady" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Outside the fact that Ebony magazine wanted to make money and focused more on the middle class, there was an attempt to change the stereotypical views of the black women from the Aunt Jemima look to a beautiful “brown-skinned” women. I think what Laila Haidarali was trying to show how "Ebony" tried to influence perceptions through this ideal “brown-skinned” woman. The charm schools weren’t just creating models but a self-confident woman who may not become a model but was ready to face the work force with less fears of knowing the right thing to say or the appropriate attire for the job. An interesting example she used was Watson’s Charm Clinic, that if you put too much make-up on you could look like you were going to a nightclub not to work. An important point made in Watson’s address was that one’s appearance reflects one’s abilities. These options led women to believe that they would improve the view of a black woman and bring her more social mobility. With all of that being said, where does the dark-skinned black woman fit in? As I read “More than a lady” by Fleming, they seemed contradictory. What women activists did defied this ideal notion of a woman black or white. But what is interesting was when I read how a black female civil rights worker was demonstrating and was grabbed and slapped in the face by a cop and his response grouped all black people together. If she was a white activist, she probably wouldn’t have been slapped around or beaten as these black women were. To the cop, she was black and he didn’t care if you were man or woman. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I really was interested by the experience of the black model who was too light skinned to represent the African Americans, but too dark to represent the whites. That is just ridiculous to me in today's terms, especially since in black and white print you probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between whether she was white or light skinned black or a subtle shade of orange. It's not often that you think about the hardships of the models in the modeling industry, but it was enlighening to read about this experience of exclusion solely because you happened to be too light skinned, but not light skinned enough. -ssellers<br />
<br />
== "Polishing Brown Diamonds," Laila Haidarali ==<br />
<br />
It was great to read this article for many reasons; it was fascinating and enlightening. One of the things I found the most interesting about it, though, was how often Haidarali emphasized the fact that the ideal was, yes, feminine, hardworking and family oriented, but also heterosexual. I think in some of the articles we have read this semester they do not reiterate this point as much as Haidarali because they think it is understood. While I never really thought post-war America was open to homosexuality, I appreciate her continually reminding us that sexism and racism were not the only discriminations of the day. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== "We Marched for Our Rights," Rev. Naomi Craig ==<br />
<br />
The last line of this article struck me the most, "I still have a piece that is missing in my life because I never got to really know him like I would have wanted to." If this was the start of the article or I had missed something, I would have thought she was talking about a father, a brother, a lover...someone that she would have had a close personal connection with that ended to soon. I certainly would not have expected her to be talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This line, I think, shows how deeply MLK inspired not only African-Americans, but all Americans. His assassination was something personal. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
This article was really inspiring to me and also showed me the true difference between the North and South, it was not something we just read about, it was a reality. Naomi Craig was scared for her son and daughter's welfare but never stopped them from growing into the people they wanted to be, amongst all the racial differences she let them attend school in the South and travel to a place that appeared to be on a different continent, not states inside the United States. I also wanted to note on the line she stated, "I had never been around so many Blacks before; I thought it was wonderful. I felt they were all so pretty, all different colors." That was the most inspiring line for me, Mrs. Craig saw beyond first appearances she believed color was beautiful why could America not do the same? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I was going to quote that same like Megan did! I found it so interesting that she commented on the various skin tones of the other African-Americans at her daughter's school. You always hear of black and white, not normally of all the varying skin tones. Her reasoning for not protesting the Vietnam war was admirable. "How could I protest it, when he was already in there and his mother was heartbroken. I couldn't protest. One woman protesting, making a mother feel her son was over there in vain." I'm sure there were many others who feel that way, as I feel many people today feel that way about our current wars in the Middle East... Her reactions to MLK Jr's death was felt by many across the nation as well I'm sure. "Here was a man who stood for beauty. He stood for everybody. He didn't just fight for Blacks, he fought for anyone who needed rights." Such a lasting impact one individual could make on an entire nation. - Christine L<br />
<br />
I really liked reading this piece on Naomi Craig. I love reading personal stories of people who actually got to experience what we learn about in class. Mrs.Craig's point of view was a unique one because she was from the North. She said she felt naive. I wonder if a lot of black people from the North felt naive that they didn't really know how bad it really was in the South. There were two parts that struck me in particular. One was when she was talking about the war in Vietnam. She said that even though she didn't agree with the war she didn't protest it either because she felt bad for those soldiers who went in and for their mothers. This was interesting because she gave an African American view of the Vietnam war. I also liked the part about when she went to Washington DC for the March on Washington. She said, "Look, this is history. We need to be in this." Her desire to be a part of this historical day and event reminded me of how I think a lot of black Americans and even white Americans felt about the inauguration of President Obama. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Haidarali, African American Women, Popular Magazines, and Modeling==<br />
<br />
I was interested to read about magazines lightening the skin tones of models for white magazines. I’m far from surprised, even if I hadn’t heard of it being done before reading this article. It’s sort of a way to keep that “exotic” look, yet with more acceptable skin color. What’s most interesting to me is that it is still goes on today. For instance, check out a comparison of [http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/img/blog/aug08/blog080808_beyonce2.jpg Beyonce] in a Paris L’Oreal ad to what she actually looks like. As if Beyonce didn’t already have fairly light skin. I’d say she probably fits into the “Brownskin” the article talks about. So, how would you like to explain yourself Paris L’Oreal? -- Taylor Brann</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-25T01:01:33Z<p>Ebethel: /* Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think this story provided a good contrast to the readings that talk about all of the success people found because of the war. The war did improve the lives of many people, and following the war was there was unprecedented wealth, but there were also people who didn’t find success and continued in the same poor conditions they always had. Though this reading is part of a fictional novel, I think it provides a balance for all of the improvements in Americans lives that we’ve read about. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I remember learning about Japanese internment camps when i was young being just totally confused by it. In part, because it did seem eerily similar to what had been going on in Nazi Germany, as many others had mentioned. This passage really brings out a lot of the degradation that i imagine many Japanese-Americans must have felt to have been controlled and suspected and discriminated against because of what was for many, including the author of this piece, a relatively distant ancestry. She'd grown up being an "American", and now she was alienated from that identity without really being able to identify with the "Japanese" for which she was interned. I think that the author's discussion of the issei and nisei sort of gets at that struggle to pin down an identity and differences between generational reactions. -Erin B<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience. Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious. As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940's colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she's doing the right thing. The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war. -Erin B<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==<br />
<br />
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn't seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don't think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn't want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn't care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn't even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn't belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn't have gender OR race on their side. - Angie<br />
<br />
I’ve always thought that Japanese American internment/relocation camps were probably the worst decision FDR ever made in office. A lot of the people put into camps had lived in America for many years, and their children had never been to Japan in their lives. They were Americans, and some of them, as in the case of Jeanne, were very much disconnected from Japanese culture. Jeanne didn’t speak Japanese, and she twirled batons and wanted to be a Catholic. How much far removed from Japan could you get?<br />
The Sone reading mentioned that “some people had little faith in the ideas and ideals of democracy” so they put Japanese Americans in camps to ensure loyalty. But it wasn’t Japanese Americans that didn’t have faith in democracy, it was the people who put them into camps. -- Taylor Brann</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-03-25T00:25:56Z<p>Ebethel: /* Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Rosie the Riveter, Fanny Christina Hill ==<br />
<br />
Having grown up accustomed to seeing Rosie the Riveter in any history of the United States in World War II, it's almost surprising to have a tangible and relatable "Rosie" to read about. I really enjoy the comparison between the work woman who presents herself through Rosie than the working woman who came before her, who had to constantly fight for her right to work. It's amazing how when the country needed the woman worker she was there even though society had always told her it was not her place. I think it'd be interesting to read more accounts of woman workers during this time. -Ssellers<br />
<br />
What surprised me most about Fanny Christina Hill was the number of opportunities that she had as a black woman thanks to WWII. When she describes her life she talks about several jobs that she had. Those that she didn’t like, she would quit. Its amazing to think that only a few decades prior, black woman were limited to hard domestic work and they were stuck doing those jobs because they had no other options. Hill had many options, she went to work at North American Aircraft where she learned to do different skills. She did not like department 17 because it “was nothing but shooting and bucking rivets.” (186) So she decided to leave, then got a job in bench work, then plastics. Then she had a child and left North American and did day work, but she did not like that so she quit. Then she got a factory job weaving. Then, North American Aircraft called her back so she quit the factory job and went back! This shows how WWII’s labor shortage truly opened up opportunities for black woman. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Fanny Christina Hill’s experiences were extraordinary opportunities as a black woman. She was able to make more money than she had before the War. Though she talks about how the jobs were different than white females working in the same company, she expressed that it was movement forward and how her hard work earned her a place back in the company after she had her child. I thought of Hill, after having discussed unemployment being not present during that time, explains a reason why she had a lot of opportunities. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
I liked the story about Fanny Christina Hill's experiences. I think she really brought Rosie the Riveter to life. I'm glad that during the war even African American women were able to obtain jobs. They didn't, however, always get the best jobs available as opposed to their white, female counterparts. She said the job she got was in Department 17 where all they did was shooting and bucking rivets even if they had their good education. This is also a happy story though because she was able to return to the job she loved at the end. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree with everyone else about having a real, tangible Rosie the Riveter. I have J. Howard Miller's poster on my wall at home and have often wondered who the encouraging woman was, where she came from, what she did after the war... and now I know! While reading though, I was intrigued by Fanny Christina Hill's off hand comment of "they weren't hiring too many men unless they had a good excuse" (186). I know this is a women's history class, but it made me wonder. Were they refusing to hire men that they thought should have been fighting in the War? -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Norma Yerger Queen Reports on the Problems of Employed Mothers in Utah, 1944==<br />
<br />
"Those who quit have done so because of lack of good care for their children or of inability to do the housework and the job" (page 373). I like that quote from the article a lot because it emphasizes to me the difficultly some women must have had with working instead of fulfilling their obligation as wives and mothers. In today's understanding, it is possible to do both at the same time (although, not everyone would agree with that statement), and so it's easy to be sympathetic toward these women who had to deal with the status of society around them changing on an almost daily notion, while internally debating upon leaving the home to do a civic or familal duty or fulfilling her role in life as caretaker and mother. -ssellers<br />
<br />
It seems as though the author of this article is sort of addressing two separate issues. As the title says, the first is the issue of providing families with adequate childcare services. The second problem though is that working mothers are still expected to shoulder all of the housework plus the added chores brought about by wartime rationing. The author would rather women be given the option of shorter work weeks so that they can complete their tasks at home than receive help from husbands who return from work to read newspapers and relax. She seems very accepting of the fact that joint housekeeping simply "didn't click" for her and her husband, despite the fact that she had gone to work under the impression that he would help out more around the house. Couldn't someone have made the case that if women were doing their patriotic duty by going to work in the war industries that men could do theirs as well by helping with some of the housework that might otherwise keep their wives home? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Wartime Migration, Harriette Arnow==<br />
<br />
Gertie and her family relocate because of World War II's new economic opportunities, but Gertie does not shed her Depression era mentality very quickly. Her husband seems content in his ability to borrow to put a roof over his family's heads. Gertie, however, remains ever mindful of the family budget. She was most likely the one keeping track of the finances during the Depression, especially while her husband was off working in Detroit, and his casual attitude towards buying on credit and debt do not sit well with her. After all of our readings from last week, it's not hard to imagine some of the extremes Gertie may have gone to to keep her kids fed. We know that, at the least, she sacrificed time with her children as she writes that "she'd never had the time" to take the kids on day trips the way Clovis had. Yet now, in her eyes at least, her husband is undoing all of her careful scrimping and saving. It's easy to see how real-life women in Gertie's situation would have felt a bit taken advantage of and lost amidst the changing economic environment. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
When I read the excerpt from Harriet Arnow’s, ''The Doll maker'', I kept thinking of how different Gertie and Clovis were about the idea of what they wanted their life to be like. I don’t think they believed in the idea of a companionate marriage. Gertie’s hatred toward the city brings out the harshness of what a city was like and compared it to the farm she’d always wanted. As I read her descriptions of the city, about loud noises and the small living space, it made me think of the shock women would have felt as they moved from rural areas to a bustling city for better wages. -MHimes<br />
<br />
This poor woman, Gertie, and her family really got to me even though it’s just a book. Whether the book was told in the third person omniscient or first person, I really felt like I was Gertie while reading this. The fact that she was forced from her home by her husband, so he could get a job that paid better, was enough to sympathize with her. What really got me was the sense of confinement I felt while reading. Beginning with Gertie standing “her outspread hands pressed against the door, closed behind her,” (192). I felt like she was holding onto the door for her dear life, as if she was in a bad dream and she was going to wake up in any minute. She continues “to stand a moment longer staring, choking, swallowing hard to prove to herself that she was not choking,” (193). It feels to me like she’s drowning, struggling for a way out of her new life that her husband has forced upon her; an unavoidable wave crashed on her. Gertie obviously couldn’t leave her husband and the support he provided as well as separating her children from their father even if she isn’t happy. Her husband, Clovis, contributed to Gertie’s drowning feeling not just by making the family move but in his accumulation of debt as well. Gertie asks “if’n you’ve already run into debt ‘fore me an th youngens comes, why how can you manage with us?” (195). I would have asked the same question. What was he thinking gathering debt before the rest of his family had already moved in? Now Gertie had more reason to feel like she was drowning. There was no way out and that much have been a devastating, overwhelming feeling. I can’t even imagine. Gertie isn’t just mentally trapped, she’s physically trapped. The house is so small that she “struck her shin bone against a chair,” (193) and then “her hips struck a corner of the low head of a cot-like bed,” (193). The house itself feels like a jail cell. -Morgan<br />
<br />
World War II created many more opportunities for employment, and these were very important after the economic tragadies of the great depression. This family moved to Detroit due to the country's massive mobilization and hopefully a job. I think their experience there was nothing like they expected. They thought they would be able to work constantly and improve their economic status. But as the excerpt says, the conditions were not ideal and it was not always easy to find consistent work. Their life is portrayed as incredibly rudamentary and boring. The conditions do not seem ideal as, their was "adoorless doorway into a small hall-like living room." I think this family had very high expectations and that the War would provide un-limited jobs and solve all their problems but this was not the case and they often struggled to make a living. Poverty was still prevalent in American life, especially for this particular family. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with what Mary Ann said. As the wife, Gertie was placed in charge of dealing with all the important matters of the family. The passage says, "Clovis had always brought the fun - trips in the coal truck, the river in summer, grape hunting in the fall." (P. 194) She seemed to take the on the role of the responsible parent, and almost seemed to be the head of the household in more ways than others. She was the one who worried about the finances, how being in debt was going to affect the family, and taking care of the family in general. Her husband was so distracted by the big city, and how different Detroit was from their old home. He saw everything in shades of gold, being so caught up in the idea of a new job. However, Gertie, was not so blinded by this and realized maybe they might have been worse off moving for her husband's job. I think many women faced what Gertie faced. Gertie moved because her husband found better work because of the War. That was a positive side of all this, except that Gertie's life was drastically changed by the move. I feel that many women moved along with their husbands to find better work, but it was hard for them to adjust to the new life. It seemed to me that Gertie had culture shock after moving to Detroit. I can only imagine her reaction to when her husband said, "When else would a woman on th three-tu-twelve shift git home?" (Page 197). Many women probably had to adjust to the new lifestyle, but these new lifestyles were necessary for individuals as well as the nation as a whole. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==The Challenges of Maintaining the Health, Discipline, and Morale of the Women's Army Corps in North Africa and the Mediterranean During World War II==<br />
<br />
I think that the colonel who declared that the women of the Fifth Army Corps were "perhaps the best-integrated unit in the theater" (pg. 375) was on to something. It's noted throughout the article that these women complained little while enduring difficult and occasionally dangerous conditions. In fact, they seemed to thrive on their work. I think it was probably because the women were so integrated that they thrived, because they felt useful, that their job had a real and defined purpose. They had responsibility and jobs that they were good at and being praised for. With all of that, it doesn't seem so surprising that the women did not want to be moved to "less exhausting" positions. It was not an ideal job to be sure, yet most of these women probably believed themselves to be on an adventure of a lifetime. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While these women were successful in being the first WAC women to travel to Italy and North Africa, the standards that they were selected from, I found a bit outrageous. “WAC advisers recommended that any such groups, for best success, be carefully selected,” (375). The fact that certain types of women were unwanted while others seems very odd coming from a women’s organization, you would think that they would be accepting of all types of women (of course ‘all types of women’ being white upper/middle class). “Those with irritating habits and mannerisms,” (376) weren’t chosen because they were too much to handle and, I think, would take away emphasis on the men of the Army. “The ambitious or the highly qualified women,” (376) weren’t a good choice either because they may want something that they couldn’t ever have, a promotion. Those women chosen for this job, of following the Fifth Army around, were essentially passive, pushovers. I may be generalizing too much and I’m sure some of the women may have been more, but from what I understand, to be one of the first WAC women needed in combat they had to be submissive, average, and boring. I suppose some women who behave do make history. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==Japanese Relocation, Monica Sone==<br />
<br />
I felt for these Japanese-American people. There was no reason for them to be placed into camps and contained like they were. Somehow they found hope though, in little things. The dandelions seemed to be the most influential piece of hope. The Mother was who found hope in the dandelions saying, “They’re the only beautiful things around here. We could have a garden right here,” (199) and I found it really upsetting when Henry tore up the dandelions. That could be interpreted as a metaphor for Japanese people themselves, they were the only thing that was left beautiful where they had come from and had been uprooted up in hope becoming someone better through the camps? Much like the Jewish people were being captured by Hitler at the same time perhaps? -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was a terrible time in American History. We terribly took advantage of these Japanese people who did nothing wrong and placed them in camps simply because they were related to other Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor. The most shocking part was that they were all American citizens and had been loyal citizens, and were still placed into different internment camps. This family is now #10710, which is tragic to think that the government just thought of them as objects and not even as citizens of the U.S. In continuing with Morgan's mention of the beautiful dandelions, it is tragic that they could find so much joy in something as simple as a flower. These people were ripped from their homes and very few things can bring them joy and to think that dandelions can do that is very sad. The government treated the Japanese terribly in these camps and the barracks were in terrible shape, the food was terrible, and they did not deserve to be ripped away from their homes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
For Morgan's comment above, I think the feelings of Jews in Europe and the Japanese in America during this time were very similar. It should be acknowledged that Hitler's concentration camps were designed for the extermination of a set of people, while the internment camps were a (very undemocratic) wartime precaution in the aftermath for Pearl Harbor. Both groups of people were alienated because of their heritage, forcibly moved, imprisoned and had to live through horrendous conditions. I do not think America's internment camps are identical to the concentration camps of the Holocaust, few events will ever compare. However, the fear, the anger and the confusion would have been felt by both the Jews and the Japanese. I have learned about World War II numerous times in my life, and I feel like the experience of the internment camp is not emphasized enough. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I think that this piece reflects how the war affected people, especially women of all ethnicities. Like all the others have stated, this was a terrible time for the Japenese people, being ripped from their homes only to be relocated to a prison-type setting. I think this experience by this Japenese family shows how the war transformed the lives of all people living in America. It believe it is also important to note how the young girl felt that she was no one, how this process made her feel like she was not an American, although she was born in the US and her parents had lived in the country for 25 years. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I agree with all of the above statements but I feel even more strongly about the internment camps. While I agree with what kokeefe said that the internment camps were different from concentration camps, how Americans de-humanized the Japanese was similar. Japanese-Americans became a number much like a test rat in a labratory, they were organized by numbers and letters and were not allowed outside of the high fences, much like a cage. They had poor shelter, food, and were watched everyday including giving the Japanese a bedtime of 10:00, and thinking it was okay. I think there should be a museum representing the stories and lives of the Japanese who were forced into these internment camps much like the Holocaust museum so more Americans can understand what we did as a nation in World War II. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Women of Wartime Los Alamos, Ruth Marshak==<br />
<br />
This piece was particularly interesting. I think that Ruth Marshak gives insight into the life of women who felt the effects of the war on the homefront in a very different way than most women. She explains how she was relocated to New Mexico, which she initially thought was not a great place to live, but in the end, it was a positive experience for her. I think she reveals how the war really separated men and women during this time. Although Ruth's husband was not away at war, he was still involved in the war effort and she knew very little, if anything about his line of work. All she knew was that she had to pick up her life and move to a remote, secret location. She even comments how "The Tech Area was a great pit which swallowed our scientist husbands out of sight, almost out of our lives." (205) I think this is important because it shows how women, like herself, had to learn to adapt to a life without a [constant] husband. She is an example of a woman who was able to make the best of a wartime situation that she and many other women, did not prefer. -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Women in the Armed Forces, Marion Stegeman==<br />
<br />
Could Marion be a representation of a “New Woman” for the forties? She is exuberantly adventurous in her letters, thrilling in flying and performing aerobatic stunts. Her use of phrases such as “smackers and much love” and “I sacheted over to Major McConnell’s office” displays quite a bit of sassiness. She also holds an appeal to the male aviators, and fully uses that to her advantage and has fun with it. There is also an independent streak in her, as it is clear she doesn’t like being told what to do, and so doesn’t want to get stuck doing clerical work. However, she still follows the expected path for a woman of her generation: she marries and focuses on raising her children. – Alice W.<br />
<br />
I could not be more proud of a woman in the war effort than a woman like Marion Stegeman. As Alice noted I think she was a "new woman" and wore it as a badge on display for everyone to see what she was capable of. I think she strongly differed from typical women of the time and previous wars because she did not romanticize war and when she wrote to her mother she described dangers and death; no she did not see death overseas but could see it on bases and felt the pain of losing a comrade. I found interesting how she compared the death of her classmates and instructor in a plane and to get used to hearing about such incidents to, "fall[ing] down in the bathtubs at home and be killed, or get in a car and meet death." (MAW, 191). Marion's letters home were truly powerful and made me wonder if other WASPS or WAAC's wrote their parents or significant others the same sort of letters, describing the freedoms they felt and also the feeling of loss? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Marion Stegeman is really having a field day with her war-time piloting experience. Her story about getting blown off-course is hilarious. As has already been mentioned, the language she uses in these letters is extremely 1940's colorful and seems care-free - which was totally cloying at first to read - which made her last letter seem somewhat sad, as she sounds rather deflated and is obviously fishing for reassurance that she's doing the right thing. The experience of having so much freedom as a pilot along with the constant patriotism-fueled encouragement must have been exhilarating for a lot of women, and work of any kind - particularly if you get to fly - must have been a good distraction from the reality of war. -Erin B<br />
<br />
==Photos taken during WWII by Esther Bubley==<br />
<br />
First, I want to say that I found the photos to be really helpful. Not only can I understand the history of women during WWII but I can see them, I think this makes a big difference in fully understanding the time. Next, I want to say that what stood out to me was the different ways that women were dressed. All of these pictures were taken during the war, however, some women were wearing typical woman's clothing of the time, while other women were wearing pants. What is more interesting is that women in the skirts all seemed to sit in a really uncomfortable, uptight looking way with their legs crossed at the bottom or held tightly together with their hands in their laps. The women in pants, on the other hand, are sitting in traditionally male positions as we would see them today, slouched with legs wide open, leaning on the thighs. I'm not sure if that means anything, but it stood out to me. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
==Mary McLeod Bethune Urges President Roosevelt to Turn to Qualified Negro Women for Help, 1940==<br />
<br />
I found this article to be really interesting because it shows that black women felt the need to help their country just as much as the white women did. The reason it is so interesting to me is because up until this time, the country had not done much for the black community, so why should they feel like they need to be helping their country? The answer to that question is sort of what Bethune is getting at. She is saying that the black community has earned the right to be patriotic and defensive of their country because they ''are'' citizens. She wants to be treated like the white citizens who are defending their country because she is a hardworking citizen too. On page 372, she says while speaking about the black community, "they, too, have earned the right to be numbered among the active forces who are working towards the protection of our democratic stronghold." I think that Mary Bethune wants the President to know that black women love their country and want to protect it, and they should be given the right to do so. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
==Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, A Schoolgirl at Manzanar, 1940s==<br />
<br />
I thought reading this article was really kind of sad because of how much Jeanne didn't seem to want anything to do with her Japanese culture. I don't think it was really a conscious decision on her part, its just that she was American and wanted to do American things. She didn't want to learn the traditional Japanese form of dance but instead wanted to do baton twirling and go to catechism. Furthermore, it was pretty obvious that she didn't care whether or not she found a Japanese husband or not. Jeanne and probably many other girls just like her really were not foreign at all. Jeanne didn't even speak Japanese. Americans at this time were terrified of anyone of that race and threw them all into the same category whether they belonged or not. This is a perfect example of someone who didn't belong. Women were already fighting hard for more equality and these girls had it even harder because, just like African Americans, they didn't have gender OR race on their side. - Angie</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-18T11:29:50Z<p>Ebethel: /* Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940 */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
'''What was the point of this piece? What was LeSueur's goal? Audience? Why did the editor include it in this collection?'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). ''' One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair.''' I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. '''I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help.''' -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but '''it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression'''. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. '''It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer.''' This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. '''I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.''' I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. '''To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women.''' A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. '''I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal worl'''d. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. '''People were not sitting around passively going through the Depression, they were lining up in hoards to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all.''' LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
I think '''the most compelling part of this story was when the author described the breakdown of a young woman the previous day that escalated into a fight with the woman in charge of trying to find jobs for all of these desperate women. Both women are in a state of absolute desperation although one has a job she too faces bleak despair every day.''' The young woman has come to the agency everyday for 8 months in hope of finding a job and the other is forced to try and find jobs for hundreds of women when there aren't any to be had. It was heartbreaking for the other women to observe that now the only thing left for this woman is to go to the streets and turn to prostitution.--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by the last line, '''''“It’s not the suffering of birth, death, love that the young reject but the suffering of endless labor without dream, eating the spare bread in bitterness, being a slave without the security of a slave” (149). ''''' Without hope, the girls were left with nothing. I simply cannot imagine feeling as if you have been stripped of your future, and even thinking that perhaps slavery is better than simple poverty. ''''' Would these women have really traded positions with 19th century plantation slaves?''''' Maybe, maybe not, but the sentiment shows the power poverty has on people’s ideals. – Alice W<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
'''What did these women hope to accomplish by asking Eleanor (and Franklin) for help? Who were these women? What process of selection do you think the editor used in choosing these letters? How could we (as historians) find out what happened with these letters (and the items that were sent)? Is charity request writing a genre?'''<br />
<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. '''Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families.''' I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. '''I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something.''' --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. '''I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. '''Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs?''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women's resistance to accept charity. While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters. Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women's sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The letters to Mrs. Roosevelt were indeed upsetting, although I was most impressed with the woman seeking assistance for a new baby and offering to provide collateral. My question is why didn’t she take Mrs. Roosevelt’s advice and seek assistance from the Welfare Association? '''I understand pride and it’s commendable that she didn’t want to be seen as a charity case, but I think that the welfare of your children is always paramount.''' I think that she should have sucked it up, gone to the Welfare Association and asked for assistance. Social programs are put in place to help those in need for a specific period of time, I know I would have done anything and gone anywhere to help my kids. In addition, I found it kind of amusing that in all of this tragic poverty, one child writes and asks for roller skates of all things. I wonder if the Roosevelt’s or the White House had asked the citizens to send them letters of concern or if these are just individuals just too overburdened and looking for hope. EFritz<br />
<br />
In response to the above about the woman not wanting help from the Welfare Association, I think it's just really a matter of pride, but completely understandable. '''Welfare was a VERY new cause then, and before the only people who got charity were those of the low low working class.''' These women writing Mrs. Roosevelt were obviously very educated, probably newly impoverished and couldn't possibly imagine being indebted to someone. It is interesting to the note change in American views toward the presidency. I feel that today you would not see these huge amounts of letters to the President and First Lady in time of need. - Christine<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine about women not wanting welfare was a matter of pride. But I feel that if the situation were bad enough, someone might be willing to accept any help they are offered. However, I do understand that times were so tough, and I'm sure no one, men or women, wanted to admit that they were practically destitute and there was no end in sight, even with the New Deal's initial emergence. I found the introduction to this article quite interesting. President and Mrs. Roosevelt encouraged people to write letters expressing their concerns and problems. '''I think it was important for the American people to know that someone was listening to them, and that their pleas were not futile or unheard.''' The Roosevelts showed concern for the American people, and I think that was extremely important to people, especially in such harsh times. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
My first response to each of these letters is "Wow." I literally am struggling to find something to say. I agree with ABRATCHI about feeling the pride reflected in the letters. These women were all very strong-willed, though they were in hopeless situations. They were able to place aside their fears and insecurities in order to ask the most powerful woman in America to help them. That alone is respectable. It is also interesting to see how the way American's react to dire situation has changed in the past few decades. I sense that Americans, women in particular, have evolved to possess a more "go-getter" attitude.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
Like everyone has already expressed these letters were heartbreaking to read and its impossible not to feel these womens despair. '''They reminded me of a previous reading we did of the letters that African Americans in the south sent to a Chicago newspaper in their desperation to find a job. These women echoed the same amount of faith and trust that those women did in their letters. While these letters are extremely difficult to read it was amazing to see the kind of faith that the American people had in the government.''' Eleanor Roosevelt really made her self available to the people and whether or not she was able to help these women I think it must have helped them to know that there was someone out there who was listening. --Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I, like many others, found the letters to Mrs. Roosevelt really interesting. '''I think that its important to notice that many of these women were not comfortable asking for charity, and even reassured Mrs. Roosevelt that if she couldn't help them, they would understand.''' I also thought that the lady who offered her rings as a sort of collateral was especially intriguing because that fact that she was willing to give up two of her most important possessions shows how desperately she needed help. It also shows how much she trusted the First Lady to keep her rings safe so that she could earn them back later. I think its really cool and different how close these women felt to her. It seems to have been on such a personal level, like they were old friends. - Angie<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of to'''uch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348).''' Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about "who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family" (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing "enough" on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as "needing a job" or "frivolous"? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal<br />
<br />
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post. It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace. Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support. Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn't they. Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place. Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''I was struck by Roosevelt's almost prophetic final statement, when she wonders if one day we will respect working women more than women who stay home.''' I think we have seen this time, although I think perhaps popular opinion is moving slightly past that and more towards whatever-you-choose-to-do-is-valid-because-it's-your-choice. When my mom chose to stay at home and raise me and my brothers, she got a certain amount of flack for her decision from people who assumed this meant she was "not working." That's not EXACTLY what Eleanor is saying--she's talking about women who stay home but make little of their time and embrace laziness instead, and not specifically about stay at home moms--but it's interesting to think that maybe this is where the idea started. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
'''So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression.''' As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while?''' Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
'''The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.''' I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
'''Are there any parallels to these open air markets today?'''<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The parallel to these open air markets are certainly the day laborers who sit at 7-11 and in other shopping centers 7 days a week. The one by my house consistently has at least 4 or 5 and as many as 20-30 there for at least 6 hours a day, offering all sorts of labor for cheap. The reality is that a percentage of these men don't have their papers to get other jobs, but many are just supplementing their normal income. And in fact, in relation to the source, it sounds like that's essentially what these women were offering. It doesn't sound like they were looking to get hired as domestic servants, but to do odd jobs. In any sort of economically depressed time, it is natural to assume that service industries will be hurt first, where your income depends on the financial security of your employer (or employers). -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
'''''What is Bromley's perspective here? What else do we know about her? What biases of the time are evident in her article? [Why do you think this document received the most attention by the class?]''''' <br />
<br />
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved. Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives. It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary. It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). '''Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control?''' Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. '''However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?''' Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. '''It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies.''' It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. '''On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex.''' It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I find myself offended ON BEHALF of those struggling working-class Depression-era women whose complicated and difficult lives we're so flippantly joking about. '''I think we need to take a step back and put some historic context on these events--the temptation to cast our modern lens about birth control, considering what we know now, on events, personal decisons, and legislation so permanently mired in the past is alluring, but dangerous.''' Think about what it was like to be one of those women--the desperate women who inspired Margaret Sanger to push for birth control in the first place. Imagine yourself as one of the women we're talking about this week--married to a husband you may or may not love but whom society is screaming at you that you should, the both of you unemployed, going out every day to try to find work, any work at all, willing to suffer long hours and terrible conditions for a tiny bit of money that you desperately need. You could stand for hours in a breadline, trying not to make eye contact with all the other miserable women around you, or you could go to the welfare office and attempt to reapply again, even though you'll be denied just like you have all the other times before, but your dignity is one of the only things you have left to your name and you just can't degrade yourself that far. Not today. So you scrounge for small jobs, anything you can do--cooking, washing, cleaning--with no job security and no legislation to protect you. You take home the pennies you made, which you add to the nickels your husband managed to get, and you have to scrape it all together to buy a very small amount of food, which goes to feed your kids and occasionally you and your husband. How many kids do you have? 3? 4? 5? Too many mouths to feed as it is, and then one month your period is late and you know that you're pregnant, AGAIN, and you don't have any money for clothes, food, hospital bills, or anything else a new life requires. So what do you do? What CAN you do? Beg for charity? Write letters to the First Lady that will go unanswered? Get rid of the child you can't have with a coat hanger? Can you even imagine that? And years later some college student sitting in her class suggests you should've just stopped having sex. That if you hadn't used all that "free time" to get busy, maybe you wouldn't be so damn poor? That you should give up the only time you ever feel close to someone else, the only time you feel beautiful or loved? Or, worse, that you should somehow convince your husband not to have sex with you, knowing that there are very few laws that would help you if he chose otherwise against your will? Maybe if you knew any birth control methods that had more than a 5% success rate you could be saved from a bit of that misery. Maybe. There are, of course, the problems of logistics--manufacture and distribution at a dirt-cheap price you could afford--even if the problems of legislation and government blocks are overturned. THIS is why we study history. When we see life the way someone else once did, when we consider others' hardships and are able to empathize with their problems, we learn to get outside of ourselves and our own narrow opinions. If you walk through life with blinders that you've constructed for yourself or let others construct for you, you'll miss so much of the world around you, and we can't afford that blindness any more than we can afford to forget how these women thought and felt. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Well put, Sarah, but I would also like to add, that for these couples to stop having sex, '''both''' the man and the woman would have to agree to this. Many times women had a hard time convincing their husbands to refrain, and so they had to seek out female contraceptives so they could protect themselves that way. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
I believe today women are much better educated as to understanding the logistics and long term ramifications of sex. They also are more protected by laws that prevent men from forcing them. I would like to comment that sex, back then and still today just happens, whether planned or not and/or protected or not. There were more obstacles in the past that prevented safer management, and it is extremely important to continue sex education nationwide. -David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
'''Why did the editor include this piece? Who is Margaret Jarman Hagood? What is her goal here?'''<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. '''Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this.''' Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. '''That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).''' I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I liked this story a lot because it was so different than how many people view life during the Depression. '''I feel like Hollywood has made it seem like The Depression consisted of a bunch of poor people living on city streets and dirty factories. While these things were true, this story seems to show that things for simple, country farmers were still as they had been in the late 19th centuries.''' Mollie's family had to carry in water from a well, knew absolutely nothing about personal hygiene, and her brothers attended a one-teacher schoolhouse. The only thing that reminds you that Mollie is living in the 20th century is when she leaves home to go work in a factory and buys new things like hightop shoes. I think Mollie's personal story is touching and sad, but I also think that her story shines a light into how different life was in the country than in the city. Its like they never progressed into the 20th century. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
'''We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.''' I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==I Want You Women Up North To Know by Tillie Olsen==<br />
<br />
'''Who is Tillie Olsen?'''<br />
<br />
The way this passage was written is what initially caught my eye and made me want to read more. Her letter almost seemed threatening, especially how she talked about dyed blood on the clothing and what not. Tillie Olsen begins with "I want you women up North to know how those dainty children's dresses you buy are dyed in blood." (P. 171) Throughout the passage, Olsen refers to three or four different factory workers and gives an insight into their lives. I think Olsen's feelings express much of the working class's feelings and concerns at the time. I'm sure it was hard for the people who labored over the clothes and other things that Northern people took for granted. They worked under such awful conditions, and barely made enough money to get by. The stories Olsen told of the seamstress, spinster, and embroiderers was a way for her to remind the women in the North who were taking things for granted. '''Olsen's point was to educate those who were more fortunate than Olsen herself and the other women'''; she wanted to enlighten them as to the real reason they had nice clothes and many luxuries. It was because of the laborious work Olsen and other women did, the work that barely helped them get by in life. Olsen wanted people to realize what the working class went through and how much harder their lives were. -- Alex M<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
'''This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity'''. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn't qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan<br />
<br />
'''The caption notes that it was rare to see women on a breadline/soup line during the Depression, which I found strange considering the Orleck article on housewives.''' However, I googled some pictures, and it seems to be true. Weren’t women doing everything possible to provide for their families? So why not stand in breadlines? '''Was there some kind of masculine association with it? You’d think standing in a line for handouts would actually be emasculating. Maybe it was because men were expected to provide for their families, and this was just another way to do it.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==The Dust Bowl, Ann Marie Low ==<br />
<br />
This reading of Ann Marie Low's record of the "dirty thirties" really projected a vivid image in my mind as to how bad the worst drought in US history was. It was a very unfortunate timing for Ann Marie Low, who was a young woman with goals. Because of both the extremely harsh drought, and the Great Depression in the 1930's, she remained stuck in the Dust Bowl throughout her young adulthood. '''While reading this I couldn't help but picture her as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz in the beginning scene of the movie. ''' Life on the plains seemed difficult enough, but despite the conditions which were worsened with dust and depression, she devoted herself to her family and their farm. I found it interesting despite all this going on she still was striving to get a jobs teaching; and not to make money for herself, but for her family. '''The last major thing, and perhaps most important, I found in the reading was that she believed matrimony to be a threat to womens' independence. Because married women were supposed to rely on the husband during the depression, this steered her away from matrimony.''' -David Fitch</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-18T11:27:03Z<p>Ebethel: /* Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940 */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
'''What was the point of this piece? What was LeSueur's goal? Audience? Why did the editor include it in this collection?'''<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). ''' One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair.''' I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. '''I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help.''' -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but '''it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression'''. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. '''It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer.''' This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. '''I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help.''' I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. '''To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women.''' A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. '''I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal worl'''d. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
This was absolutely heart breaking to read. The images popped from the pages and really made these women become real and human. It is hard to understand the devestating effects the Depression had, and I think too often people look at the statistics (which are staggering and upsetting) but dont always stop and think about what really was going on. '''People were not sitting around passively going through the Depression, they were lining up in hoards to sit and wait hour after hour for, sometimes, months in hopes of any job opening up at all.''' LeSueur did an excellent job of being able to capture this feeling off deflated hope considering she was living it too, there was insight that can only be gained by seeing someone day in and day out desperate and needing that she was able to record in a manner that is heartbreaking. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
I think '''the most compelling part of this story was when the author described the breakdown of a young woman the previous day that escalated into a fight with the woman in charge of trying to find jobs for all of these desperate women. Both women are in a state of absolute desperation although one has a job she too faces bleak despair every day.''' The young woman has come to the agency everyday for 8 months in hope of finding a job and the other is forced to try and find jobs for hundreds of women when there aren't any to be had. It was heartbreaking for the other women to observe that now the only thing left for this woman is to go to the streets and turn to prostitution.--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by the last line, '''''“It’s not the suffering of birth, death, love that the young reject but the suffering of endless labor without dream, eating the spare bread in bitterness, being a slave without the security of a slave” (149). ''''' Without hope, the girls were left with nothing. I simply cannot imagine feeling as if you have been stripped of your future, and even thinking that perhaps slavery is better than simple poverty. ''''' Would these women have really traded positions with 19th century plantation slaves?''''' Maybe, maybe not, but the sentiment shows the power poverty has on people’s ideals. – Alice W<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
'''What did these women hope to accomplish by asking Eleanor (and Franklin) for help? Who were these women? What process of selection do you think the editor used in choosing these letters? How could we (as historians) find out what happened with these letters (and the items that were sent)? Is charity request writing a genre?'''<br />
<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. '''Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families.''' I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. '''I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something.''' --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. '''I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need.''' -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. '''Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs?''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann brings up an important point in regards to women's resistance to accept charity. While I agree with everyone who has posted that these letters were heartbreaking, I also felt a sharp sense of pride reflected in these letters. Some women were willing to give collateral, like the woman with the wedding rings, just to ensure that any aid they were given was not viewed as charity, rather a loan. I think this reflects a lot of women's sentiments at the time and I am curious to see what other objects or possessions women were willing to part with to receive things they needed. -abratchi<br />
<br />
The letters to Mrs. Roosevelt were indeed upsetting, although I was most impressed with the woman seeking assistance for a new baby and offering to provide collateral. My question is why didn’t she take Mrs. Roosevelt’s advice and seek assistance from the Welfare Association? '''I understand pride and it’s commendable that she didn’t want to be seen as a charity case, but I think that the welfare of your children is always paramount.''' I think that she should have sucked it up, gone to the Welfare Association and asked for assistance. Social programs are put in place to help those in need for a specific period of time, I know I would have done anything and gone anywhere to help my kids. In addition, I found it kind of amusing that in all of this tragic poverty, one child writes and asks for roller skates of all things. I wonder if the Roosevelt’s or the White House had asked the citizens to send them letters of concern or if these are just individuals just too overburdened and looking for hope. EFritz<br />
<br />
In response to the above about the woman not wanting help from the Welfare Association, I think it's just really a matter of pride, but completely understandable. '''Welfare was a VERY new cause then, and before the only people who got charity were those of the low low working class.''' These women writing Mrs. Roosevelt were obviously very educated, probably newly impoverished and couldn't possibly imagine being indebted to someone. It is interesting to the note change in American views toward the presidency. I feel that today you would not see these huge amounts of letters to the President and First Lady in time of need. - Christine<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine about women not wanting welfare was a matter of pride. But I feel that if the situation were bad enough, someone might be willing to accept any help they are offered. However, I do understand that times were so tough, and I'm sure no one, men or women, wanted to admit that they were practically destitute and there was no end in sight, even with the New Deal's initial emergence. I found the introduction to this article quite interesting. President and Mrs. Roosevelt encouraged people to write letters expressing their concerns and problems. '''I think it was important for the American people to know that someone was listening to them, and that their pleas were not futile or unheard.''' The Roosevelts showed concern for the American people, and I think that was extremely important to people, especially in such harsh times. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
My first response to each of these letters is "Wow." I literally am struggling to find something to say. I agree with ABRATCHI about feeling the pride reflected in the letters. These women were all very strong-willed, though they were in hopeless situations. They were able to place aside their fears and insecurities in order to ask the most powerful woman in America to help them. That alone is respectable. It is also interesting to see how the way American's react to dire situation has changed in the past few decades. I sense that Americans, women in particular, have evolved to possess a more "go-getter" attitude.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
Like everyone has already expressed these letters were heartbreaking to read and its impossible not to feel these womens despair. '''They reminded me of a previous reading we did of the letters that African Americans in the south sent to a Chicago newspaper in their desperation to find a job. These women echoed the same amount of faith and trust that those women did in their letters. While these letters are extremely difficult to read it was amazing to see the kind of faith that the American people had in the government.''' Eleanor Roosevelt really made her self available to the people and whether or not she was able to help these women I think it must have helped them to know that there was someone out there who was listening. --Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I, like many others, found the letters to Mrs. Roosevelt really interesting. '''I think that its important to notice that many of these women were not comfortable asking for charity, and even reassured Mrs. Roosevelt that if she couldn't help them, they would understand.''' I also thought that the lady who offered her rings as a sort of collateral was especially intriguing because that fact that she was willing to give up two of her most important possessions shows how desperately she needed help. It also shows how much she trusted the First Lady to keep her rings safe so that she could earn them back later. I think its really cool and different how close these women felt to her. It seems to have been on such a personal level, like they were old friends. - Angie<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of to'''uch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348).''' Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mary Ann. I feel that in times of crisis the government looks more for the ideal (which was never realized by most people anyway) and then makes it a national campaign. I liked her point about "who is to say when a man earns enough to suppor his family" (348) because it brings attention to the fact that during this time men really had an even harder time making enough t provide food for his family, and if he could do that, did that mean he earned enough? What standard are they basing "enough" on, because it may be different fro every person. So who really can judge a married woman as "needing a job" or "frivolous"? From the letters read earlier about the plight of most women workers (and a huge number of male workers as well), no job during the Depression was frivolous, every little bit counted for the family to survive.--jmarshal<br />
<br />
I agree with all of statements made so far on this post. It is pretty unbelievable that congress would even pass a law like this to begin with especially when women are now gaining more rights as well as opportunities in the workplace. Women should not always be allowed to work, even if their husband is making money because it just provides more income and support. Elanor makes some solid points, and all revolve around the basic question that if women want to work, why shouldn't they. Congress was right to repeal this act, especially during a dire economic crisis, but it should of never existed in the first place. Women working also just creates mor jobs and opportunities for everyone else and it was about time congress did something about it. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''I was struck by Roosevelt's almost prophetic final statement, when she wonders if one day we will respect working women more than women who stay home.''' I think we have seen this time, although I think perhaps popular opinion is moving slightly past that and more towards whatever-you-choose-to-do-is-valid-because-it's-your-choice. When my mom chose to stay at home and raise me and my brothers, she got a certain amount of flack for her decision from people who assumed this meant she was "not working." That's not EXACTLY what Eleanor is saying--she's talking about women who stay home but make little of their time and embrace laziness instead, and not specifically about stay at home moms--but it's interesting to think that maybe this is where the idea started. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
'''So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression.''' As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while?''' Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
'''The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities.''' I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm sincerely impressed by the efforts of the housewives that were described in this section. My personal favorite is when "Black mothers in cleveland, unable to convince a local power company to delay shutting off electricity in the homes of families who had not paid their bills won resotration of power after they hung wet laundry over every utility line in the neighborhood." (page 402)That is crafty AND it got what they wanted to get accomplished accomplished. Although I don't support the logic that a woman's place is in the home, I have to give the housewives their credit for being as politically active as was described. -ssellers<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
'''Are there any parallels to these open air markets today?'''<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The parallel to these open air markets are certainly the day laborers who sit at 7-11 and in other shopping centers 7 days a week. The one by my house consistently has at least 4 or 5 and as many as 20-30 there for at least 6 hours a day, offering all sorts of labor for cheap. The reality is that a percentage of these men don't have their papers, though not all. And in fact, in relation to the source, it sounds like that's essentially what these women were offering. It doesn't sound like they were looking to get hired as domestic servants, but to do odd jobs. In any sort of economically depressed time, it is natural to assume that service industries will be hurt first, where your income depends on the financial security of your employer (or employers). -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
'''''What is Bromley's perspective here? What else do we know about her? What biases of the time are evident in her article? [Why do you think this document received the most attention by the class?]''''' <br />
<br />
Obviously this is an issue that is still debated about today, and it is tough to say if it will ever be totally solved. Bromley is adamant on the use of birth control, especially during the great depression, when many families cannot really afford a child in their lives. It is, however, very difficult to force people to use birth control, especially when the methods at this time were so rudamentary. It is impossible to force all families to use birth control, but during a time like this, I beleive the use of it should be taken much more seriously because many children born during this time, will have a very difficult life right from the start. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). '''Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control?''' Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley definitely makes some strong points for the use of birth control. '''However I think making birth control available to everyone is easier said than done, especially in the middle of a depression. How much could legislation do to actually get the lower classes to start using birth control?''' Spreading the use of birth control to the lower classes would no doubt cost money, and during this time the government had many other things to put money towards. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
Dorothy Dunbar Bromley’s Comments on Birth Control and the Depression were very informative. I had been wondering about child birth during the depression era for a few days now so I was pleased to read this article. As Morgan mentioned, I too realized that unemployed poor families had more time to get it on, hence the increasing birthrate. I find it disillusioning that an issue that is taboo like birth control was at the time, is only publicly considered because it is personally affecting the middle-classes pocket books. '''It seemed to me that the dialogue at this time began because the middle-class was getting real sick of paying for all of these new babies.''' It’s sad but that is just the way it goes with so many issues in politics. It was also not surprising to read that the legislation forward movement towards birth-control for families affected by the depression was dependent on the doctors forward motion, and vice versa, getting yet another piece of legislation tied up in bureaucratic hell! I agree J Rowley, that it is a challenge to provide birth control to the masses, it take research, time, and most of all money, but it seems to me that the major hold up was the religious opposition. Bromley’s comments mentioned the Protestant and Catholic opponents of the change in Comstock Laws felt that providing birth control was “synonymous with prostitution”(340). Many of the people who felt this way were themselves legislatures so I think that the issue was wrought with complications and challenges. I wonder how many of the poor families who were having so many children abandoned or gave away their babies…not a cheer thought, just something I have been wondering. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I also, like Morgan, completely agree that this is an issue that is still debated about today. Granted, our generation seemingly has an easier access to birth control, but even with insurance and information on it it still is pretty ridiculously expensive. '''On the other hand, if there is a chance that you could get pregnant AGAIN when you are already too poor to feed yourself and your children (even if it is because of circumstances outside of your control) then stop having sex.''' It seems like a pretty easy sacrifice to make (especially since there are other means of having an intimate relationship with your husband or wife...) when you're already struggling to survive. It's stupid. and on page 338 when Bromley quotes "it is evident that a high birth rate during the depression prevailed in families which could least afford, from any point of view, to assume this added responsibility" it makes me only imagine who suffers from the burden of that new responsibilty-- Society as a whole and more importantly that child born into a crappy world where it wont even be able to eat enough to survive. Having a child during the depression when you couldn't afford it, especially if you knew the risk you were taking by having sex, is selfish. I also am disgusted at the fact that society wouldn't allow a woman to control whether or not she HAD another child because the officials in society were sooooo afraid about talking about female sexuality, birth control, and the religious implications of a woman controlling her body has. Ultimately though, it is the children born accidentially into this society that suffer more than anyone and eventually end up perpetually on welfare because they had no other options because society wouldn't allow their mother to practice immoral birth control, and their parents couldn't refrain from having them. -Ssellers.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately I find myself offended ON BEHALF of those struggling working-class Depression-era women whose complicated and difficult lives we're so flippantly joking about. '''I think we need to take a step back and put some historic context on these events--the temptation to cast our modern lens about birth control, considering what we know now, on events, personal decisons, and legislation so permanently mired in the past is alluring, but dangerous.''' Think about what it was like to be one of those women--the desperate women who inspired Margaret Sanger to push for birth control in the first place. Imagine yourself as one of the women we're talking about this week--married to a husband you may or may not love but whom society is screaming at you that you should, the both of you unemployed, going out every day to try to find work, any work at all, willing to suffer long hours and terrible conditions for a tiny bit of money that you desperately need. You could stand for hours in a breadline, trying not to make eye contact with all the other miserable women around you, or you could go to the welfare office and attempt to reapply again, even though you'll be denied just like you have all the other times before, but your dignity is one of the only things you have left to your name and you just can't degrade yourself that far. Not today. So you scrounge for small jobs, anything you can do--cooking, washing, cleaning--with no job security and no legislation to protect you. You take home the pennies you made, which you add to the nickels your husband managed to get, and you have to scrape it all together to buy a very small amount of food, which goes to feed your kids and occasionally you and your husband. How many kids do you have? 3? 4? 5? Too many mouths to feed as it is, and then one month your period is late and you know that you're pregnant, AGAIN, and you don't have any money for clothes, food, hospital bills, or anything else a new life requires. So what do you do? What CAN you do? Beg for charity? Write letters to the First Lady that will go unanswered? Get rid of the child you can't have with a coat hanger? Can you even imagine that? And years later some college student sitting in her class suggests you should've just stopped having sex. That if you hadn't used all that "free time" to get busy, maybe you wouldn't be so damn poor? That you should give up the only time you ever feel close to someone else, the only time you feel beautiful or loved? Or, worse, that you should somehow convince your husband not to have sex with you, knowing that there are very few laws that would help you if he chose otherwise against your will? Maybe if you knew any birth control methods that had more than a 5% success rate you could be saved from a bit of that misery. Maybe. There are, of course, the problems of logistics--manufacture and distribution at a dirt-cheap price you could afford--even if the problems of legislation and government blocks are overturned. THIS is why we study history. When we see life the way someone else once did, when we consider others' hardships and are able to empathize with their problems, we learn to get outside of ourselves and our own narrow opinions. If you walk through life with blinders that you've constructed for yourself or let others construct for you, you'll miss so much of the world around you, and we can't afford that blindness any more than we can afford to forget how these women thought and felt. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
Well put, Sarah, but I would also like to add, that for these couples to stop having sex, '''both''' the man and the woman would have to agree to this. Many times women had a hard time convincing their husbands to refrain, and so they had to seek out female contraceptives so they could protect themselves that way. - Alice W.<br />
<br />
I believe today women are much better educated as to understanding the logistics and long term ramifications of sex. They also are more protected by laws that prevent men from forcing them. I would like to comment that sex, back then and still today just happens, whether planned or not and/or protected or not. There were more obstacles in the past that prevented safer management, and it is extremely important to continue sex education nationwide. -David Fitch<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
'''Why did the editor include this piece? Who is Margaret Jarman Hagood? What is her goal here?'''<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Margaret Jarman Hagood’s piece The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman was quite interesting and offered a personal glimpse into the transition of from a girl, to a young woman, and finally to a mother. The main character Mollie seems to already fill the role of the mother while her own mother continues to have child after child which takes a toll on her health. '''Mollie’s observation of her mother’s child rearing experience obviously shaped her own, to the point where she was often stating that she did not want to have children or get married. In the end of course she follows the same path and seems to come to terms with this.''' Though the narrative of this story was intriguing, it did not delve into the reasons why these women were having so many children. I would venture to say that it was due to a lack of access to birth control for white women in the south. '''That being said, this piece challenged me to compare the experiences of the women in the Urban North and the Agrarian south. While women in the South were birthing larger families, women in the North were hoping to decrease their family side. Mollie seems to view a large family as an albatross around her neck when she is a young woman because she has set goals for her life but when she is old she “transferred her efforts to achieving them for her daughter” (161).''' I could see how people without children would find this a depressing thought but I think that it is endearing a bit. When viewing Mollie’s situation with a modern eye, or forcing modern ideas onto her life, it is hard to see how this transfer is a beautiful thing but in reality, Mollie’s is doing something amazing, she was, throughout her life self sacrificing. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
Sorry for writing so much, this story really sparked something for me. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I liked this story a lot because it was so different than how many people view life during the Depression. '''I feel like Hollywood has made it seem like The Depression consisted of a bunch of poor people living on city streets and dirty factories. While these things were true, this story seems to show that things for simple, country farmers were still as they had been in the late 19th centuries.''' Mollie's family had to carry in water from a well, knew absolutely nothing about personal hygiene, and her brothers attended a one-teacher schoolhouse. The only thing that reminds you that Mollie is living in the 20th century is when she leaves home to go work in a factory and buys new things like hightop shoes. I think Mollie's personal story is touching and sad, but I also think that her story shines a light into how different life was in the country than in the city. Its like they never progressed into the 20th century. -- Angie<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
'''We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength.''' I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
==I Want You Women Up North To Know by Tillie Olsen==<br />
<br />
'''Who is Tillie Olsen?'''<br />
<br />
The way this passage was written is what initially caught my eye and made me want to read more. Her letter almost seemed threatening, especially how she talked about dyed blood on the clothing and what not. Tillie Olsen begins with "I want you women up North to know how those dainty children's dresses you buy are dyed in blood." (P. 171) Throughout the passage, Olsen refers to three or four different factory workers and gives an insight into their lives. I think Olsen's feelings express much of the working class's feelings and concerns at the time. I'm sure it was hard for the people who labored over the clothes and other things that Northern people took for granted. They worked under such awful conditions, and barely made enough money to get by. The stories Olsen told of the seamstress, spinster, and embroiderers was a way for her to remind the women in the North who were taking things for granted. '''Olsen's point was to educate those who were more fortunate than Olsen herself and the other women'''; she wanted to enlighten them as to the real reason they had nice clothes and many luxuries. It was because of the laborious work Olsen and other women did, the work that barely helped them get by in life. Olsen wanted people to realize what the working class went through and how much harder their lives were. -- Alex M<br />
<br />
==Women in a Soup Line (photograph)==<br />
<br />
'''This picture surprised me because after reading the other sources, I got the distinct impression that most women were too proud to stand in soup lines and tried their hardest to avoid having to resort to them. And yet, here is a picture of quite a few women in a soup line happily accepting the charity'''. And they didn't oppose to having a picture taken of them! Do we just have an overwhelming amount of sources that focus on women who were anti-soup lines, when that wasn't actually the case? Or did those women actually stand in soup lines and were too proud to admit it? Something to consider is the fact that the women in the photo are Mexican Americans while the sources were written by white women. Perhaps the societal expectations were different for these two groups that would legitamately make white women afraid of being seen accepting charity. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I think that perhaps the women photographed were of a different mentality than those read in other primary sources we read. These women were Mexican American women, who were probably accustomed to not having the best that society can offer, they were not part of the prototypical white middle class ideal before the Depression. Also, they eithe had to go, or volunteered to go, around the back of the soup kitchen, so maybe they did face the same struggle with accepting cherity as other women we have read (or they were not allowed to go in because they didn't qualify for aide), but after weighing the option of going hungry or being able to feed their family for the nigt, it cmes down to you do what you have to do to survive. --jmarshal<br />
<br />
Like CBrau I found this photograph very odd. From reading Meridel LeSueur’s “Women in Breadlines” I also thought that women were too proud to wait in a soup line. I got the notion that women would feed all of their family before themselves and if they did not have a family that they would starve because they were too timid to wait in line for food. These women don’t seem to timid or scared to be standing waiting for food at all, they’re smiling in fact. Maybe it is because these women are Mexican-American? Like jmarshal states that they are used to not having the best of society and probably have no problem asking for help. I think that we’ve been focusing on the white middle-class women much, who were shaped by their lifestyle before the depression. Before the depression these women were independent and shied away from receiving any help at all, especially from a man (such as pictured here). Mexican –American’s always have had large families, retaining the structure as man being head of the household, surely did not feel this pressure to uphold ideals that she never had and gladly accepted help. -Morgan<br />
<br />
'''The caption notes that it was rare to see women on a breadline/soup line during the Depression, which I found strange considering the Orleck article on housewives.''' However, I googled some pictures, and it seems to be true. Weren’t women doing everything possible to provide for their families? So why not stand in breadlines? '''Was there some kind of masculine association with it? You’d think standing in a line for handouts would actually be emasculating. Maybe it was because men were expected to provide for their families, and this was just another way to do it.''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
==The Dust Bowl, Ann Marie Low ==<br />
<br />
This reading of Ann Marie Low's record of the "dirty thirties" really projected a vivid image in my mind as to how bad the worst drought in US history was. It was a very unfortunate timing for Ann Marie Low, who was a young woman with goals. Because of both the extremely harsh drought, and the Great Depression in the 1930's, she remained stuck in the Dust Bowl throughout her young adulthood. '''While reading this I couldn't help but picture her as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz in the beginning scene of the movie. ''' Life on the plains seemed difficult enough, but despite the conditions which were worsened with dust and depression, she devoted herself to her family and their farm. I found it interesting despite all this going on she still was striving to get a jobs teaching; and not to make money for herself, but for her family. '''The last major thing, and perhaps most important, I found in the reading was that she believed matrimony to be a threat to womens' independence. Because married women were supposed to rely on the husband during the depression, this steered her away from matrimony.''' -David Fitch</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-03-17T19:23:54Z<p>Ebethel: /* Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck */</p>
<hr />
<div>==The Despair of Unemployed Women, Meridel LeSueur==<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this piece by LeSueur because she focused on the women waiting in the employment bureau for a job and told a story about their different backgrounds. It is interesting how LeSueur describes the options that these woman have. They could stay single or get married. A husband could bring security, but if they get married then their husbands could leave them with children and more mouths to feed. They could get money from charities, or they could be proud and starve in silence. The only part that I don’t know if I buy is the very last sentence, “being a slave without the security of a slave.” I am not sure if that is a fair comparison. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I can only imagine how it must have felt for these women to sit around all day, waiting for work. LeSueur describes women who "sit hour after hour, day after day, waiting for a job to come in" (146). One can really feel the desperation in these women's lives; to just simply sit around, hoping a job would come in and they would be the lucky one to take it reveals scarcity and despair. I think this piece shows the embarrassment that women felt when faced with the depression and unemployment. Women were loosing jobs but as LeSueur points out, not many of them appear in places of charity. Some women at this time must have felt ashamed when having to ask for food, shelter, etc. I wonder why women at this time were so ashamed to receive charity, especially when they were willing to choose starvation, over help. -abratchi<br />
<br />
This was a very moving piece and a very important one. We learn the stats, the percentages, but it also imperative to read stories like this, heartbreaking stories, that remind us of the human and individual side of the Great Depression. For years now, my image of the Great Depression has been the memorial in D.C. with the figures in the Bread Lines. As far as I can recall, all those figures are men. LeSueur reminded me of the extent that women suffered. In response to abratchi, I think women flirted with starvation and death instead of asking for charity, because though they were left with nothing else, at least then they still had their pride and self respect. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I also found this piece heartbreaking. The desperation of these women was completely unbelievable. For me, the most moving part was the description of woman who went crazy because she couldn't find work, and how the woman working behind the desk reacted. It makes you wonder who was truly suffering more-the employed woman who has to watch poverty and despair everyday, or the woman who has to watch her family starve and suffer. This truly depicts the helplessness all the women must have felt. I never really gave much thought to women in the depression, but this piece proves they suffered equally as much, or greater, than the men.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Meridel LeSueur pointed out some very interesting things about women and their reactions to the depression. I think she was expressing that you don’t know what fear and hunger are until your faced with it, as well as the humiliation of asking for help. I thought what LeSueur said about the women who took their last little bit of money and bought a hat. She described it as being foolish and lustful,but in some ways I think, these were attempts of women reaching out for what life once was for them. That if they could only have that hat, it might make themselves feel better, somehow regain what they had lost and feel whole again, and erase the humiliation they faced daily. The hat became inward expression of a broken and humuliated women. -Mhimes<br />
<br />
This piece was nothing short of heartbreaking for me to read. It must have been so hard for women the Great Depression era to deal with starvation and lack of work. After coming so far in society (beginning to work more, obtaining suffrage), women far so far. To me, it seems as if there was an intense struggle between dependence and independence going on. On one hand, women wanted to be independent and able to provide for themselves and their family, but were unable to do so as a result of no work, poor wages, etc. This is especially evident when LeSueur says "if she's proud then she starves silently" (146). On the other hand, women were almost regressing to a state of dependence upon males and their roles as providers. LaSueur describes such a desolate time for women. A time of intense loneliness and hopelessness. It was an eye=opening read for me, predominantly because I have been given or blessed with so much. It is hard to recognize the hardships that so many women have had to overcome to arrive at today's societal norms.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
I thought this piece was really interesting because it showed us a new side to the women of the Great Depression. It made them human. As historians we tend to look at the facts and forget that what we read about were real people with real emotions. I think that LeSueur did a great justice to these women by providing us with an insight into their personal world. I found the most interesting part of this piece to be about the women’s faces. LeSueur doesn’t simply remark about each individual face but them as a whole “all familiar to each other,” (146). The faces of the women were all alike to one another because they saw each other every day and everyone always looked the same, desperate for work. Besides Mrs. Grey, whose face would stick out in any crowd, LeSueur describes the women as being unable to look into one another’s eyes, “dreading to see that knowledge in each other’s eyes,” (146). The eyes are said to be a window into the soul and looking into them only to see the knowledge that there is no work for them must have been devastating. It must have appeared that there was no light at the end of the tunnel, “like a women drowning and we turn away,” (149) as LeSueur said of Mrs. Grey. -Morgan<br />
<br />
==American Women Ask Eleanor Roosevelt for Help==<br />
Let me just say that almost all of the primary sources for this week broke my heart. Pain and sadness and such a thick sense of hope lost just oozing off of the paper. But the letters written to Eleanor Roosevelt struck me especially. That these women honestly believed Eleanor would try and help them says a lot about the way she related to Americans and how she tried to present herself as someone who understood how hard the Depression had become for American families. I couldn't believe that one of the women sent her rings to the White House in exchange for baby clothes. She is a perfect example of why birth control should have been made widely available to women, as these families will do anything for their children and it terrifies them to bring babies into the world that they can't afford. And her resistance to the idea of charity, as well as her desire for Eleanor Roosevelt to keep her request a secret, reflect the same attitudes of women Meridel LeSueur's writings about how women do not seek assistance in nearly the same numbers as men do. They are supposed to be the infallible mothers who always provide for their children, and when they cannot they don't want to admit that they haven't achieved the ideal. On a side note, the letters made me wonder what sort of things the Obamas read these days, as the current economic situation isn't the Depression, but I imagine they get some painful letters as well. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I found the letters to Eleanor Roosevelt to be really upsetting. I can’t imagine how desperate a person must be to send these letters, and their descriptions of what they need are so basic for survival. The only letter that didn’t touch me was the first, the woman has a $2000 mortgage that she can afford, but needs help finding a job for her husband because she has a baby on the way. When reading the other articles about women who had been saving for 15 years and had $30, to hear that this woman who could make a $2000 mortgage payment is really frustrating. But I guess it says a lot that an obviously well off woman is seeking help from the White House at the same time that very poor women are. (I wonder if Mrs. H.E.C. ever got her rings back that she sent Mrs. Roosevelt as security, that was really sad to read…) – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These letters were heart wrenching(as Mary Ann and Erin have already stated and I am sure everyone will continue to say).The desperation, the sadness, the hope all jump off the page. I think it was the hope that got me the most. I know it said that all the letters "were answered or passed on to the appropriate government agency for action" (149), but these were only 4 letters and the Roosevelts recieved up to 8,000 A DAY. I have hard time believing that they were all taken care of. I mean answering all these letters would have definitely created some jobs, but it just seems so sad that they had to call on the First Lady, the magical woman in D.C. with all the answers. It just seemed like they were (devastating)letters to Santa or something. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree with all the other postings; this was terribly sad to read. The women who wrote to Eleanor Roosevelt seemed to have exhausted all of their other options and didn't know where else to turn. I found it especially depressing how it seemed to bother the women to ask a favor of the Roosevelts, despite their extreme need. The hurt pride must have been just as terrible as the empty stomachs.-Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I can't imagine asking the first lady and the president of the United States for help in buying neccesities or things I can not afford on my own. I wonder how many of the letters she responded to and if she actually gave the people what they asked for and not just advice or direction on where to go. I thought the one letter about the women who sent her prized possessions to Eleanor Roosevelt as security was sad. I also wonder if anyone today writes these kinds of letters to the president when they are not able to afford everything they need. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
As everyone else has noted the letters written to FDR and Eleanor broke my heart. As Erin asked I wonder if women not just Mrs. H.E.C. but also the other hundreds of women got their security deposits back? And as other letters showed some people wanted to send security deposits thinking that would help their case, did it? Or were the Roosevelts just as heart broken as I am today reading these letters and wished there was an easy fix-it button to hit? I could not imagine the lives of these women and what they endured to sit and write a letter asking for help not for them to survive but for the betterment of their families. Have any other administrations made public letters such as these or do they focus on other matters at hand and not internal affairs? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
==Eleanor Roosevelt Applauds the Repeal of the Married Persons Clause of the Economy Act, 1937==<br />
I can't imagine how out of touch with the reality Congress must have been to pass a law that assumed all married women who were working were doing so for perfectly frivolous reasons. I liked that Eleanor Roosevelt pointed out that even women who weren't working strictly for economic need had positive benefits on the economy and their communities. Yet even she feels the need to point out that working does not mean these women "are not good mothers and housekeepers" (pg. 348). Even in the midst of an economic disaster, somehow American society clung to those ideals of women as being strictly in the home. I guess the notion represented some kind of return to normalcy, though it had never really existed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Militant Housewives During the Great Depression, Annelise Orleck==<br />
So many married lost their jobs or were barred from acquiring them because they were married, but this didn't stop them from carving out a role for themselves amidst the hardships of the Great Depression. As we learned in class, labor unions gained strength during this time, so it makes sense that women would also come to adopt organization as a means to be heard. Also, since it seems that so many women either did not seek public assistance or who could not because of the structure of the New Deal programs, activities like strikes and boycotts probably seemed the only real way to continue to feed their families, something that consistently fell on their shoulders to do. In a way these women were pulled out of their homes by their desire to stay in their homes, working to ensure that they could afford to continue to be proper wives and mothers. They only noticed that they were defying social norms when others, namely men, began to complain about it. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Orleck mentions that working-class women becoming involved in activism created public tensions because they were politicizing the traditional roles of women as wives and mothers. But hadn’t that been going on for a while? Reformers and suffragists became involved in the public world of politics, and they used their roles as wives and mothers and the associations that came with them as justification to enter that public realm. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I think that this public realm offered some release for these women, laws had put restrictions on them and they felt it was there duty to stand up though not to be just heard but adamant on change. Women had been an intricate part of the family income whether she worked in or outside the home. She was knowledgeable of how the system worked. It was no surprise that they took on this role. -MHimes<br />
<br />
As I was reading Annelise Orleck’s writing, what stood out to me was the exchanges of goods that took place without using any money. I thought about the story my great grandmother told me about her parents farm. It was a big farm and people throughout Culpeper county would come to exchange goods they had or work for food on their farm. She had commented that they were living comfortably till the depression hit. -MHimes<br />
<br />
The ways in which these women helped to define the family as a strong political unit and influence is interesting. In spite of all the examples Orleck has of the print media sort of mocking them, these women seem to have had a definite and intimidating presence in the commercial market and politics of their communities. I just got the sense from reading this article that these women were strongly organized and politicized - even just in the practices of barter and garden co-ops to ease the hardships of the depression - and all of this in the name of protecting their family. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Louise Mitchell Denounces the "Slave Markets" Where Domestics Are hired in New York City, 1940==<br />
I found it interesting how Mitchell compared domestic servitude to a slave market. This piece, like almost all the other primary sources, really reveal the sense of distress that many women, namely black, felt as a result of the Depression. Women were willing to stand on streets and street corners all day in the hopes of being selected for a domestic job, which at this time were scarce. Her piece hints at a backwards-ness for blacks because despite slavery's end after the civil war, working as domestics for primarily white families has similarities to [old] slavery. While domestic servitude was still one of the most common jobs for all women, the impact of the depression hit this profession hard, hence why Mitchell writes that women spent endless hours hoping for a job. The reality of this work is also reflected through this piece. Domestic servitude was not an easy job and it often required hard labor, long hours and little pay. I think the desperation of the depression reveals women's willingness to take these jobs, simply because some money was better than no money. Mitchell makes an important distinction about race, by stating that about half of all domestics are negro and ends her piece by stating that reform needs to occur for "the most oppressed section of the working class- Negro women" (350). Black women at this time felt the affects much harder than white women, but I think it is important to understand that most people, even whites were suffering from the effects of the depression, not just African Americans. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I also thought it was interesting that the black woman's domestic service would be labeled a "slave market." Reading about the life of those women and what they did for work makes me better understand why it was termed that. They stand outside waiting for someone(presumably a white person) to come hire them, they do back-breaking work, and get paid very little. I bet they were probably at least thankful to have any type of job though to earn some money during the depression for their family. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley Comments on Birth Control and the Depression, 1934==<br />
<br />
I think my favorite part of women that we have studied so far has been about the issue of birth control. I think it’s because, even as a women in the 21st century it’s something I can relate to the women of the 20th century and earlier. Birth control and the processes of staying a healthy woman have evolved over the years, but the ideals and concerns haven’t. I think it’s also very interesting to see the evolution of the methods and devices used before modern day birth control; it’s a very intriguing history. In my joy of learning about birth control, I loved this article. Some of the statics that Bromley presented were somewhat comical, such as “in 1932 there were 43 percent more births in families without any employed workers than in families with one or more full-time workers,” (338). In summary, couples who weren’t employed were having more children because they had more free time to get busy. Why couldn’t scientists just state that? Then the statistic that “rich classes who took no preventative measures were as fertile as the women of the poorer classes, colored women included,” (338). Did white, middle-class and upper-class women really think that working class women were more fertile? Could that be a racist issue? I suspect that white middle and upper-class women thought that because the “working-class” ranked low on the social hierarchy, that couldn’t control themselves, when they really just couldn’t afford or weren’t offered birth control? Besides that Bromley cites that the “chairman of the section on Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Abdominal Surgery, listed birth control as one of the four major problems in gynecology,” (339) but then the committee refused to study about. Why? Was the subject still too taboo to speak of, even at a committee meeting about Gynecology and Obstetrics? Just like last week's article on Generational Conflicts by Bromley, she writes in a certain way to influence people, this time the doctors and committees who need to make birth control available to everyone, not just to those that can pay for it. -Morgan<br />
<br />
<br />
==Margaret Jarman Hagood, The Life Cycle of a White Southern Farm Woman==<br />
<br />
This section was almost as heart-wrenching for me to read as the letters to the Roosevelt's. Mollie's life is something I could not imagine nor do I think endure. She grew up faster than many women due to her growing number of siblings and a mother who was unable to keep up with all of the chores, and let her education go by the wayside to help her parents. I did enjoy that she was able to get away from the farm for awhile and be her own woman, earning what she wanted and turning down potential suitors. Did all young women who made it away from the farm feel the same? And did they all settle for marriages as she did with Jim? I would want to know how the story would of ended had Mollie been allowed to return to work in the factory; how her ideas of family may have changed. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==A Mexican-American Childhood during the Depression, Carlotta Silvas Martin==<br />
<br />
We have read sources that focused on the support of Mexican American communities in the West, but this source is evidence that those communities continued to exist during the Great Depression and even gained strength. I found Carlotta's family's generosity amazing during such a rough time. Of course her family had a little more security since her father was a miner, but they still did not receive a great deal of money. They seemed to be thankful that they receieved any money and shared their blessings with the less fortunate. The Great Depression is often characterized as a depressing, woeful time, and yet Carlotta and some of her fellow community members celebrated holidays with parties and parades, went to the movies and attended plays. Carlotta is also very involved in community service that raises money and provides entertainment for the community. While I'm sure the life was very hard for Superior during the Depression, Carlotta looks back on that part of her life in a positive light and remembers the strong, thriving community that existed. -- CBrau</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-10T23:07:32Z<p>Ebethel: /* Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
I loved his assessment that, were women as sexually interested as men, the world would be "one vast brothel." The history of the sexual repression of women is long, and these beliefs, or ones like them, persist for long after this was written. It's amazing to consider that so many people still feel similarly towards homosexuality. Dr. Frederick likens lesbianism to some weird practice of child molestation, not unlike ways in which those opposed to same sex marriage offer the 'slippery slope' argument that allowing gay marriage will lead to marriages between adults and children, or adults and animals. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought the first letter was interesting because Mrs. W. M. wants pamphlets from the Childrens Bureau for her new pregnancy despite already having three boys. I was curious as to why such a woman would be interested in this information since she has already experienced pregnancy, birth and raising children. Her eagerness for new information makes it clear that despite any preexisting knowledge, there were women that were curious and very interested in the Bureau's pamphlets. Beforehand, pregnancy had either been a private topic or restricted to local women. This is evident in the second letter, where Mrs. A. E. is clearly experiencing cravings, but has no idea what is going on. Since she wants the Bureau to read and respond to her letter confidentially, I would assume she had not discussed her cravings with other women. Despite a majority of women experiencing pregnancy, I think that the letters show just how few women went around talking about and sharing their experiences like pregnant women do today. Thus, I believe that some women saw the Bureau as a place to publicly discuss and share their issues, such as the malpractice that the woman in the third letter experiences. -- CBrau</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_8_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 8 Questions/Comments2010-03-10T22:59:08Z<p>Ebethel: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''MAKE SURE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS UNDER THE RELEVANT AUTHOR/TITLE HEADING (OR TO CREATE A NEW HEADING IF THERE ISN'T ONE YET)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
==Peiss, The Cosmetics Industry==<br />
<br />
I’ll admit that I never gave cosmetics much thought or even believed that they deserved thought, for that matter. This article is just another reminder of how even seemingly insignificant objects have a lot of historical value because they reflect broader social patterns. Even makeup. In the case of the article, cosmetics reflect the rise of consumer culture and marketing, as well as class and race connotations. These connotations continue to exist today. I’m sure we’ve all looked at a woman wearing a generous amount of makeup and immediately had less than charitable thoughts about her sexual practices and/or economic position. “Slut” and “trailer park trash” may be words that come to mind. And I’m sure we’ve all seen advertisements about ways to use makeup to look more “exotic,” which is just a politically correct way of saying “ethnic.” I think perhaps nowadays “exotic” is often more about being less offensive. In the past, when people were more overtly racist, maybe labeling things “exotic” was a way to recognize some kind of racial envy and provide a means to achieve what was envied without admitting to it. But that’s kind of a psychological can of worms. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I like the essay "Making Faces" by Kath Peiss. Comparing today's perceptions of cosmetics and beauty to that of the early 20th Century is very interesting. Most women today wear makeup and instead of refraining from using it to appear respectable it is more the norm to use it. Makeup has also been made available to women of almost any class thanks to stores such as Walmart and even dollar stores. The use of makeup is also not associated with prostitutes anymore because most women wear it. It is always interesting to see how beliefs and opinions change over time, compared to non marital sex which can still be debatable, most people agree that wearing makeup today is acceptable. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
It seems rather ironic that cosmetics, long associated with prostitution, would make their move to the mainstream at a time when society appeared so concerned about the moral well-being of women. At the same time though, this was the first era in which women could really claim income of their own; they represented a new market that cosmetics industries and the beauty culture took advantage of, marketing their products as necessities for women. And in a society that feared women may be loosing their femininity to traditionally male pursuits like wage work, voting, and casual relationships, make up became a way of showing that women were still neat and soft and fair, that they were still essentially women, despite the fact that they may have moved beyond the traditional domestic sphere. -Mary Ann <br />
<br />
==Mosher Survey, 1892-1913==<br />
<br />
The Mosher survey was very fascinating. I found it interesting that one of the interviewees in her twenties in the 1890s seemed to have a more conservative view on sexual practices than the woman in her fifties in the 1890s. Number 1 felt there was danger in too much sex for a woman and that it was necessary to men but not women. Number 35 felt that both husbands and wives needed sex and that people became too nervous and twitchy without it. The survey didn’t note where the women were raised or various other features (though I assume they were middle-class at least if they were regular patients), which I think would have been a big influence on their answers. The survey also provided an interesting contrast to Dr. Frederick’s assumptions about women. Had he actually bothered to interview women about their feelings towards sex, which I’m sure he wouldn’t have dared do for sake of propriety, he would have discovered that women also had an interest in sex and could find it just as satisfying as men. Of course, he probably would have tried to explain it away. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
It was interesting that the study done on sexual habits of women was able to obtain opinions from women during that time. It seemed that sex was just not talked about. But after reading the excerpts from the online reading, it was visible in my mind that women were searching for answers to the inter workings of their marriages and needed help. That need to talk came out of the desperation they felt towards preventing their own marriages from falling apart and maintaining their own health and control over their own body. -MHimes<br />
<br />
== Manifestations of Nymphomania, 1907 ==<br />
<br />
== Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV ==<br />
<br />
Carrie Chapman Catt’s address to the LWV seems to be a call for women to keep fighting and to try to position themselves on the inside of politics as opposed to from the outside. She states that it has been a battle for 60 years to get the right to vote, and argues that it isnt the time to stop. She says on page 121, “Are we going to petition them [the political parties] as we have always done? Well, if so, what was the use of getting the vote?” and, “the only way to get things in this country is to find them on the inside of the political party.”<br />
I think Catt is pretty level headed, though she may be underestimating the difficulty women will have getting into positions of power. She seems to understand that just because women gained the right to vote does not mean that the country’s biases dissolved overnight. She believes that it will be a slow change, but women must work from the inside to make that change happen. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment ==<br />
<br />
<br />
When reading each side of the Debate of the Equal Rights Amendment I tried to choose which side I found more convincing. I found that I took the side of the Doris Stevens of the National Women’s Party. The argument is quite simple, women and men don’t live under equal protection of the law, and the laws that exist still reflect old English Common Law. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove all legal discriminations against women on account of sex (Stevens goes on to list all the rights/protections women would gain). What I liked about Stevens argument is that she states that women should have the right to do what they want. Just because they have equal rights to inheritance does not mean that they can’t give it to their brother, or son, or whoever. Women don’t have to hold positions of power if they don’t want to. They should just have the ability to do so if they so choose. <br />
Alice Hamilton, on the other hand, seems to have tunnel vision. She is solely focused on working women. I agree that women should be protected, but she does not seem to understand the reasons why working women fail to unionize, nor does she look at the negative impacts of protective legislation on working women. She does not seem to focus on any of the other things women would gain out of the Equal Rights Amendment. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Alice Hamilton emphasizes protective legislation because she comes into the picture with the idea that women are naturally different than men though this does not take away from their abilities to perform work. She talked about how men have already achieved strong labor unions and women have not yet achieved theirs and need the chance to grow. She had already separated the male and female arenas. The expectations of society for a woman to fulfill those “ideal” roles (even though not realistic for the working class) makes it hard for women who have families that are working long hours with low wages. What time is left for children, husband, and home? It was interesting that the National Women’s Party wants to get rid of this legislation. I think that Doris Stevens makes a good point when she emphasizes choice. Women have worked hard and organized as “self-governing units of society” and by getting rid of protective legislation it omit’s that difference. It will govern laws that allow men and women to be able to make the choice based on decisiveness and preference as an entity not by gender. They both have their strong points but with different perspectives. -MHimes<br />
<br />
<br />
I am actually quite surprised that Alice Hamilton and so many others are against the Equal Rights Amendment considering how much they could potentially gain from it. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
== Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters ==<br />
<br />
I thought the essay by Joanne Meyerowitz in Unequal Sisters about the furnished-room districts was very interesting. In particular, the different types of relationships women had including "dating," "pickups," "occasional prostitution", and "temporary alliances" stood out to me. I didn't know they actually labeled these kind of relationships, dating and sexual activities so specifically. Meyerowitz also explains on page 331 that there were mixed opinions of whether these kinds of practices or "non marital sexual expression" was acceptable. I think the idea of sex outside of marriage is still something people are in debate about today. So, many years later these opinions haven't really changed. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I think the notion that "employers paid self-supporting women wages intended for dependent daughters and wives" (pg. 329) is tremendously important in looking at the furnished-room districts. Those who were concerned about the morality of the women living in these districts seemed to largely overlook the fact that many of the women engaging in the relationships deemed scandalous were doing so at least in part out of economic necessity. Maybe they believed paying women a living wage would encourage more women to leave the home in favor of wage work and so further contribute to America's loss of morality, but in reality if women who could have afforded to support themselves things like "occasional prostitution" probably would not have become so rampant among women living on their own. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy I found this whole essay interesting and the way Joanne Meyerowitz describes feminine culture back from the 1830s to the 1960s shows a dramatic shift in the roles women played. I liked how she described the role film played in the changing role of women and how Hollywood banked on the notion, sex sells. On page 334 she discusses the film, ''The ''Model:'' Or, Women and Wine'' and in it Marcelle admits she is a "gold digger" which I compare to Kayne West's song about a woman who is a gold digger. Showing Meyerowitz's theory that "the sexual behavior of women in turn-of-the-century furnished-room districts is not an isolated episode in women's history."(335). -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Reading "Sexual Geography and Gender Economy," I was struck by the part of the essay that discussed "going steady" as a supplemental wage. Mary Ann has already discussed occasional prostitution, but I wonder fact if vice investigators were more lenient and accepting of these women than the typical prostitute because they were also involved in "honest" work? I was also intrigued by the fact that the women were so candid about the fact that they were using their feminine wiles to go on these dates, to go to these places because they could not afford to. It seems like it was another job, albeit a more enjoyable, recreational one. -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
==Dorothy Dunbar Bromley, "Generational Conflicts"==<br />
<br />
I imagine that the generation of women who fought for decades to get women the right to vote were crushed to discover that younger women quite casually dismissed many of the ideals they had fought for and even the label they had worn. I understand why the younger women of the 1920s may have felt that they had the world at their feet because they had more opportunities for independence than their mothers had had, but they must have still realized equality was not yet reality. Instead they had convinced themselves that because so many things were different they were inherently better. And it's interesting to note that the backlash against the word feminist started so long ago. The author's description of feminists as masculine, angry, and anti-men would easily fit with what many associate with the term feminist today. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Bromley issues a lot of interesting points in this piece that seem to beg the question, what is the point of this feminist- new style? The part that interested me the most was the seventh tenet. This discussion on the "Keep your maiden name" slogan points to how ridiculous Bromley viewed some of the common feminist arguments of the 1920's. I think her piece is important because of the point Mary Ann stated with her description on women that could/and possibly did influence a lot anti-feminist thinkers today. My question is, these feminist- new style have a profound affect on the women's movement in the 1920's and did they handicap some of the progress made post 19th amendment? -abratchi<br />
<br />
==Anxious Mothers Write the Children's Bureau==<br />
<br />
I found the third letter written by Mrs. A.E.,Minnesota (August 10, 1923) was the most influential in discussing issues of medicine and women's health. While all three letters are relevant to prenatal and child care and I believe writing them was an excellent way for women to share concerns, the third letter hit home to me. It made me wonder if her trouble with delivery was the start of malpractice in child birth. Along with that did doctors still think it was okay to treat women as subserviant, so if they had a rough delivery ooops...guess that is tough luck for you all (referencing the Bible, Adam and Eve). I also think it was wise to let other women know that doctors such as Dr. B should not be trusted with delivery and on the flip side her doctor in Saint Paul could benefit from these publications. Did these women influence how prenatal care is treated today? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that the third letter was the most influential in this three letter piece, but it was the second letter; however that really captured my attention. This letter showed me just how little women knew about being pregnant and some of the concerns they had. It revealed the lack of knowledge on food cravings that women know today as a normal thing when dealing with pregnancy. Overall, I think all these letters showed women's desperation when it came to womanhood and the changing societal pressures facing women of that time (to have children and take on the sole responsibility for both the home and family). They revealed how women were craving more information about their bodies, more specifically, how to manage pregnancy in an age where doctors were inaccessible and/or were engaging in malpractice. -abratchi</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T21:38:46Z<p>Ebethel: /* The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
These women's lives totally interest me. As plainly as she tells her life story, as pertaining to work, you get a real sense of the pride that she felt in being so industrious and in being so good at what she did. She even mentions the books she read while she used to churn butter. She was constantly occupied and never (except when she taught before she was married, presumably) for a wage. But by most measures, she and her husband led very successful lives. They provided for their five kids and sent them to school, one even to Cornell. And at 58, it sounds like she even gets to "retire". The values of rural living seem very different than those of urban living. As more and more people moved into urban areas, i wonder how this affected the lifestyles of farm families. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
It was almost impossible to keep a straight face while reading this particular article and I had to read a passage to my roomate and he was also laughing hysterically. This is the first intense anti-suffrage argument that I have come accross with this much candor and I found it incredibly interesting. Marie Jenny Howe essentially gives her gender no credit and claims they hardly posses any intellectual capacity and are even incapable of doing something as simple as placing a ballot in a box. She wants to continue with the established order and keep women down in the domestic sphere because "some one must wash the dishes." She continues to take a very conservative approach to women's roles and even mentions the Bible as reason to keep women suppressed. Myself, and others I am sure do not agree with Howe's view of women as an imcompetent gender and beleive women should have never been suppressed like they were. -afrisk <br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T21:22:17Z<p>Ebethel: /* Female Perspectives on the Great Migration */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender'' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.''<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T21:20:40Z<p>Ebethel: /* Female Perspectives on the Great Migration */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I do wonder if the Chicago that was portrayed in the ''Defender''Italic text'''' was anything like what the Southern men and women found when they actually got there. Regardless, Mary Ann is right in pointing out the tones of desperation in these letters being such a telling indicator of the financial and cultural hardships that black men and women found in the South. I'd sort of be interested to know how effective this newspaper was at actually placing people in jobs and housing and how much migration it inspired. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-02-22T20:03:25Z<p>Ebethel: /* Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue" */</p>
<hr />
<div>NOTE: If the document/essay you want to write about isn't listed, add it using the following format: == Author, Title, Year ==<br />
<br />
== The Burden of Rural Women's Lives, 1900-1901 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Reading the Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives the author states that she learned two things from her life on the farm. First, the work never kills. Second, that work must be calculated beforehand to figure out ways to be more efficient. I think these two things are emphasized throughout her description of her life. Not only did these rural women have to worry about keeping the home, but they also had to work on the farm. The lives of rural women were tough, and I would argue that they as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives because they worked the same, if not longer hours as the working class urban women, but they also had to do household tasks without the appliances that were available in the cities and without electricity. Based off of the author’s description of her life, I think that these two lessons that she is passing on were probably essential in getting by as a rural farm woman. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Agnes Nestor, The Story of a Glove Maker ==<br />
<br />
After reading Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives I thought that the rural farm woman’s life was incredibly difficult and I stated that it was as tough if not tougher than urban working class women’s lives. However, after reading The Story of a Glove Maker I think I changed my mind. Urban working women had to work in factories with irregular pay and irregular hours all they while they were threatened by their male superiors who could fire them at a moments notice. Not only did they have to worry about keeping their jobs, but they had to worry about being sexually exploited. All the while, these women, too, had to worry about keeping their homes. They also seemed to have fewer opportunities for advancement than the rural farm women. The farm women worked incredibly hard, but the author of Burdens of Rural Women’s Lives had the ability to be educated and have her children be educated, one of her children was at Cornell University! She also seemed to have a lot to show for her work, while it seems that urban women were working hard just to get by. I don’t know if it is fair to compare and contrast, but these women all had difficult lives. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Fannie Barrier Williams Describes the "Problem of Employment for Negro Women," 1903 ==<br />
<br />
As so many black women worked in domestic service and were in contact with whites, Williams preferred to see the elevation of domestic service into respectable work and a recognized profession, believing that it would raise the race in general. But she suggests that there was a tendency to look down on domestic service within the black community, though I think it may not all have been a result of the demeaning nature of the work itself, but rather that the women who worked in domestic service were essentially working for the betterment of white people in a very direct way. Williams wrote, “If our girls work for wages in a nice home, rather than in a factory or over a counter, they are ruthlessly scorned by their friends and acquaintances” (263). For instance, factory work as compared to domestic service also required manual labor, but while it’s products were more to the benefit of whites, it was in a way less obviously so than domestic service. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found Williams' views on domestic service to be quite interesting. For example, she thought that domestic service would eventually become a profession and there would training for it as if it were a normal job. Obviously domestic service never became a profession and looking back on that thought today, many of us would probably laugh at the idea. However, for that time period, I don't think her ideas were too out of place because of the incredibly limited employment opportunities for black women at this time. Domestic service was one of their few options, therefore I think Williams was almost forced into beleiving this because she didn't know anything else. Also, she thought that domestic servants should be looked upon in the same light as women in the working world. Again, it is tough to agree or disagree because domestic service is all black women really know and therefore they can almost only beleive that there work is equal to that of white women in society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
On page 264 it says that "the everyday man and woman who make society must change their foolish notions as to what is the polite thing for a young woman to do... my only plea is that we shall protect and respect our girls who honestly and intelligently enter this service, either from preference or necessity" and I find that quote to be loaded with so many things that she has to say. First, I applaud her for realizing that it is not always the role of the woman that needs to change, but societies perception of that role. Then, she also describes how sometimes good, smart people have terrible jobs (college kids waitress-ing???)because of their situation and realization that it would be the best opportunity they could have to get themselves the glory of never having to have to do that terrible work again. I enjoy this quote from the reading in particular because it applies to both races in the lower class and can even still be applied to a lot of things inherently wrong with society today (and she doesn't sound bitter, rude or condescending in this statement). It also helps her statement that by working these service jobs and highering the status of them, the black race as a whole could race their association with these jobs and in turn their status in life. -SSellers<br />
<br />
In reading this article I began to question Fannie’s race. I thought maybe Fannie may have been white because she isn’t criticizing every other race and complaining about the work that African American women have. I found it unusual for an African American woman to empower her kind and their jobs instead of criticizing the work and people. Fannie doesn’t seen too upset about African American women only having an opportunity in the domestic service industry, and instead of denouncing the trade all together, she finds that only a few changes need to be made. I really enjoyed the fact that Fannie is empowering her women rather than continuing to remind them of the short-falls they will face in their life and the hardships that come with their color. “Our girls must be made to feel that there is no stepping down when they become professional housekeepers. The relative dignity, respectability, and honor of this profession should be first taught in our schools,” (pg. 264). -Morgan M <br />
<br />
I had the same question as Morgan while reading this piece and decided to do a little research. I found out that she was a black woman, with a college education. I could not find anything about her working as a domestic servant. Now I wonder who the intended audience of this piece was. Was it aimed at black domestic servants or other black intellectuals? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
From this source, I feel that Williams feels that she wishes black people were in demand for other jobs besides domestic work but since they are not they should put their hard work ethics to use and take pride in the job they are given. She thinks that women who are educated shouldn't necessarily be upset working as a domestic servant but should be thankful to have a job like this. I thought this part was interesting because I know it would be hard for me to think about going to college for 4+ years and then still having to become a domestic servant. I would definitely be a little upset and not want to take pride in the work I was doing especially if the conditions were not so great. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Harriet Brunkhurst Laments the Home Problems of "Business Girls," 1910 ==<br />
<br />
"She could earn her own living, but she could not fight her own battles…" (p. 267). Many of the problems women faced going in to the workforce are quite obvious to us: low wages, harsh conditions, sexual harassment, etc… But Harriet Brunkhurst's article points out a less obvious problem that many girls faced in America - being treated as working women by their families. Even after working all day, they were still expected to keep up with their chores and responsibilities at home. Yet boys and men in the same situations were not expected to carry as much responsibility at home and were recognized for the hours they spent working outside the home. Yet again, there is this difficulty of separating women from the private sphere. And I think that even today some women are expected to carry more responsibilities within the home, even if they work outside of the home. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree here that a women in the working world can experience added stress when she is at home. A woman can go to work, but she is still expected to manage the 'domestic sphere' when she returns home and this can place a lot of stress on women. For example, in this excerpt, the girl is expected to work all day, then when she comes home, she gets grief for not helping out with the household chores. It can be very difficult to balance life in the working world with the home front, and women are often expected to do a lot in both fields. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This article by far is my favorite this year because I found so many examples in it that are still present in us women today. The notion that we as women, who are independent, still come home to more work while the men of the house are allowed their “rest and relaxation” because they are said to do more. That is so untrue. Why is that women why work a job, attend school, or have any other daunting task that takes up most her of her time, is expected to return home after such a day to the “domestic sphere” and must continue to maintain it? I find that very unfair and it hits home personally for women in today’s age as well. I feel that today it is just as terrible a situation as it was 100 years ago, if not worse. Because of the many facets of life today, women tend to take on many different tasks in the “public sphere” of life and yet must also maintain the “domestic sphere”. As I’m sure every women has gone through this more than once in her life, all women can attest to the stress and anguish one can feel because of such. There are exceptions to the rule however, such as Maud’s mother, who speaks in her daughter’s defense to a neighbor as “when I would have been on the sofa or comfortably in bed, she trudges bravely away,” (pg. 267). I think that it takes a strong woman like Maud’s mother to stick up for her daughter to another women’s criticism. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
== The Vice Commission of Chicago reports on the Working Conditions in Department Stores that Lead Female Employees into Prostitution, 1911 ==<br />
<br />
This one’s a doozey. What was the cause of prostitution? Apparently, there were a few causes. Poor sanitary conditions in the working world affected the nervous system causing women to be more susceptible to weakened morality, fast paced modern life lead to eroticism, and poor pay meant a working girl couldn’t afford life’s necessities. I’d say there’s a grain of truth to these claims, poor pay in particular being a problem. Also, young women who worked in department stores were regularly exposed to unsavory individuals who wanted to sully their purity. Again there’s a bit truth, but the most realistic argument here is the case of male employers sexually exploiting girls. However, most of the other examples described seem less like prostitution and more like a girl trying to have a good time. Perhaps the vice commission couldn’t handle the idea of a sexual liberated women. Finally, I have to ask, what was the point of this report? Was it a cry for better working conditions and for better wages? Or was it an argument to keep women out of the working world in order to protect their virtue? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The first part of this one was just hilarious. The beginning two paragraphs were especially ridiculous--the idea that "highly speeded modern life must stimulate these organisms?" (271) is so stupid that I just have to laugh at it. It claims that being busy and having a fast-paced life arouses women sexually, and then makes the equally odd jump that sexual arousal leads directly to prostitution. Some of the other points of the article are closer to the truth; the various ways in which a girl could get involved in prostitution (as her own boss or under a pimp) probably actually happened. That this kind of income was usually a supplement to the wages that were too low to live on is not a surprise (minimum wage is still too low to cover the cost of living today, as well). The specific stories of the women that were interviewed for the article gives scads more credibility than the ludicrous blanket statements of the beginning (who was this written by, anyways?). --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I agree with the absurdity of this article that Taylor and Sarah both did a good job at conveying and in order to not be redundant I'll bring up an issue I had with the section on Married Men in particular as "Married men are among the worst offenders against salesgirls (272)". SERIOUSLY?? I mean, I know that there are instances were one who is married, male or female, oversteps flirtation boundaries (although not always intentional)without desiring to have anything come by the banter but when the situation states that if these women do not reciprocate the married man's wishes they would complain and say their business was neglected? I thought men in this time were supposed to be arrogant, secure, strong and not easily offended by someone not returning their favor. If this accusation of the married men is true for the majority of married men at this time, maybe it was the male sex that was weak, insecure and irrational? -Ssellers<br />
<br />
== The Harsh Conditions of Domestic Service ==<br />
<br />
"…when I hear so much said about our unreliability, our untrustworthiness, and even our vices" (p. 54). I think it is pretty amazing that strongly held prejudices in the South guaranteed extremely low wages for domestic servants for so long. These jobs were probably difficult to obtain, since jobs were very limited for African Americans, so they would work hard to keep them. So for an employer to claim their domestic servant is unreliable or untrustworthy? Or to complain about stereotypes of the race? I don't blame the woman who wrote this article for being offended. I am sure she worked extremely hard, for barely any money and at the expense of never seeing her own children, and she could not believe the insensitivity of whites when it came to her job. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I, too, am offended, but not terribly surprised, at the prejudice that obviously existed in the South when the article was written. I am surprised at how much lower the black family's income was than the women department store workers we read about. They could stand to make $24 a month at their much easier jobs, which was the total amount for the entire black Southern family (7-15 people! on a salary too meager for one!). The math there is just astounding. But, as the author points out, there wasn't much she or the black community could do to fight this. If they protested at all, or even requested that their employers use more respectful titles, they were fired, blacklisted, and immediately replaced by another woman who would work for that wage or even less. I'm not sure if minimum wage existed at this time, but even if it was I doubt it would've been enforced for the benefit of these workers. --Sarah Smethurst<br />
<br />
I thought this source about domestic service was very interesting and also a little sad. Reading about how the conditions were different for black women and white women in the workforce didn't surprise me, however. The white women were able to eventually obtain jobs other than being a domestic servant. African American women were not so lucky. The woman in the source said that "more than two-thirds of the negroes of the town where I live are menial servants of one kind or another..."(54) The conditions for these women were not always the best either. The wages they earned were usually lower than that of their white counterparts, they rarely got to see their children, they never even were able to go out for entertainment, and they relied on something known as the "service pan." White women thought they had it tough but it seems clear that they probably didn't even know what the word tough meant. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From this article I actually felt the hatred and frustration that this anonymous woman felt. Just the thought of making merely enough to get by on, with the help of a service pan, daunting and very overwhelming. It’s reminds me of looking into the future weeks of school and seeing all of the work that lays ahead, knowing that some will not get done, that feeling of failure and there being no way out. For example, if and African American left a servitude job, finding another would be almost impossible, which is so very unfair. “If we did object, we should be driven out without the least ceremony, and in applying for work in other places, we should find it very hard to procure another situation,” (pg. 55). I was very upset with the white women as well, not letting this woman bring her children around the house to see her when she wasn’t allowed to see them but “only once in two weeks, every other Sunday afternoon,” (pg. 54). I feel that the white families do not want to think or believe that an African American servant has children and a family to support; I think that they like to see her as an animal. -Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I was bewildered to read this. The treatment the domestic servant had received by her employer was total disregard to recognize her as a human being. She was taking care of her employers own children and they could not show a little compassion towards her and realize that her family needed her too. As a mother, it would be unbearable to not see my children for that long period of time. It took a strong woman to endure that. This servant nursed their baby, nursed in what sense, like to suckle a baby? If so, was this a common expectation? -MHimes<br />
<br />
==Ellen Carol DuBois on "Harriet Stanton Blatch and the New York Woman Suffrage Movement, 1894-1909"==<br />
<br />
So the fight for women's rights was divided not only over the issue of race, but also over socioeconomic status. Harriet Stanton Blatch tried to erase some of that hostility by reminding women of all classes that their different livelihoods depended on one another. The educated professional women wanted to consider themselves of a higher order, more prepared for civic responsibility. But by putting down the intelligence and ability of women working for wages, they were disparaging the image of all women who worked outside the home, a group that they themselves were a part of. Both groups of women had a stake in society's opinion of women working and so needed to work together to force society to overcome the idea that working women were somehow less than "respectable." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Female Perspectives on the Great Migration==<br />
<br />
Reading these letters to the ''Chicago Defender'' makes a person realize how desperate the lives of many southern blacks were at the time. They all seem so anxious to get to Chicago, but I have to wonder how much they knew about the city and what life was like there. Here are women asking for any sort of job they can get so that they can support their families, but from our other readings we can infer that all that will be offered to them, if anything, will be difficult and low paying domestic service work. And the more black women who went North, the more they probably competed against one another and drove down their own potential wages. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Marie Jenny Howe and an "Anti-Suffrage Monologue"==<br />
<br />
I have to admit to getting some strange looks from my roommate because I was laughing to myself while reading this one. Howe manages to outline the arguments made in favor of denying women the right to vote while simultaneously making each and every one of them sound ridiculous. It reads like a modern political satire, and it's interesting to discover that people used humor to make their points in Howe's time as well. Her decision to structure her work in couplets especially emphasizes the bizarre dichotomies that women became trapped in. They were angels and depraved, vicious individuals all at once. I suspect that class differences accounted for some of the disparity. Women of the upper class would have been to angelic and innocent to involved themselves in politics, while working class women would be too ignorant to deal with politics properly. When phrased this way, it's hard to see how anyone could have continued to employ these arguments against women voting, but I suppose if the anti-suffragists were really using women's hats as a reason to deny them the franchise, they weren't exactly trying to stick to even remotely reasonable attacks. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I, too, found myself laughing at this article, particularly the line “Besides, when I look around me at the men, I feel that God never meant us women to be too particular” (p 104). The pamphlet provided a clever way to point out the ridiculous and contradictory arguments put forth by anti-suffragists without aggressively attacking them. However, I do wonder if this pamphlet helped to change anyone’s mind about suffrage, or if it was mainly an amusing piece for those already committed to the cause. – Alice W<br />
<br />
I also found this article extremely entertaining. I like how Howe stated her arguments in a nonthreatening manner while also proving how ridiculous the arguments of the anti suffragists were. One point that particularly intrigued me was how many believed many women should non be exposed to the "muck and mire of politics" (101) in the public sphere. Many women were already working outside of the home in dangerous factories with terrible conditions and long hours. Could the scandalous nature of politics be much worse? --Anna K Holman<br />
<br />
I think this reading was very amusing. “If you don’t like one you can take the other“, for Howe meant there were so many reasons why a woman should not vote. Interesting that she thought it was more dignified for a woman to tease, nag, cry, or make a scene to get what she wanted rather than vote for it. - Mhimes<br />
<br />
Besides the fact that Howe begins her monologue by calling herself a "modern up-to-date woman" (106), this piece seems to come from a man's point of view. Throughout the monologue she continues to refer to women as 'they' rather than 'we'. The fact that it seems like a man's point of view indicates to me that it is attacking the masculinity of anti-suffragists. - J Rowley<br />
<br />
This is like the Colbert Report for the suffrage movement. "Once I saw a woman driving a horse, and the horse ran away with her. Isn't that just like a woman?" Hilarious. I'm with Alice, though, on this probably not being a persuasive piece or even widely read by those outside of the suffrage movement. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Suffrage Militant Alice Paul Goes to Jail ==<br />
<br />
I have encountered Alice Paul before in general American History classes, but I had never actually read any of what she wrote about her experience in jail so this was very interesting. While it is a testament to her organizations strength and determination, it also provides an insight into the horrible conditions of jails at this time. Not that jails are meant to be five star resorts, but the lack of ventilation, the inedible food, and the uncleanly atmosphere is appalling. What’s worse is that these women were treated like they were mentally deficient, when that was clearly not the case, and the authorities just needed a way to control them. Events like this got the suffragettes media attention though, which they needed in order to garner support for the movement, so even though what these women had to go through was awful, they knew it was necessary. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I found it appalling how Alice Paul was immediately suspected of mental illness after embarking on her hunger strike. The jail warden and psychologists were obviously looking for any reason to have her committed. The most convenient excuse was an 'obsession' with President Wilson, who Paul mentioned only in reference to her beliefs about gaining suffrage. As Alice W stated, the only way authorities could control these powerful women was through lies. This proves how frightened and intimidated many men were of suffragists. They would use any means to control women, even forging insanity. -Anna Holman</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-28T02:09:53Z<p>Ebethel: /* Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes. This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings. There seems to be great confusion between the pure bloods and mixed-bloods. For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values. Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school. Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern. It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I really liked Amy's point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l<br />
<br />
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of the passages I found most striking in this article involved the feelings of inferiority that were internalized by the students, particularly those who had more Cherokee blood. Na-li expresses happily that "My complexion does not prevent me from acquiring knowledge and being useful hereafter." [p. 182] That they were so able to associate their own heritage and skin color with their inferior social standing demonstrates the ways that the seminary failed them culturally. On page 185, a male Cherokee seminary graduate celebrates his "whiteness" and says "it is the white blood that made us what we are." It just seems like a pretty high price to pay to find success outside of the Cherokee community. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie<br />
<br />
I really couldn't believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can't believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a "real" "tradtional" Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more "white?" I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green. This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals. I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans. She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call "one of the numbskulls" (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly. She also realizes the Mexicans' intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be "the first of the kind they have ever seen" (p. 235). Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie. It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans "attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture" (p. 236). To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants. Another highlight of Shelby's diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really. On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant's energy in to cleaning the house. She is determined to do her "duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband" (p. 234). I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return. Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband's acceptance and affection when he returns home! Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237) This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
'''I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn't think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers.''' It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off? - christine l<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to.''' What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time?''' And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. '''And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?'''---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but '''we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do'''. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with many of the comments above regarding money and how at the time it was quite a large amount to spend but I found interesting how the numbers were so precise, ie. with Loi Yau her amount was $503 for four and half years(p. 238). How did the mistresses come up with the numbers, was $503 the exact amount for travel, lodging, etc.? I also question if the women really understood everything they were in for, like kokeefe mentioned America was the land for opportunity-it may have been a better life here than in China. '''The women were able to live in America without debt and be free to do as they pleased once their servitude was complete.''' I do not think prostitution is the way to go or an ideal life choice, but for the women maybe it was a means of escape. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Super-disturbing. Particularly in the first contract where, on page 238, it lists all of the ailments that would justify a return of the product. First of all, pregnancy is mentioned as one of these "great sicknesses" and also the really hilarious, "'stone-woman,' i.e, inability to have carnal intercourse with men." What sort of inability would this be? If women were willing to do this in order to leave China, even if prostitution played a different social role there, then they must have been escaping some bad situations. Or else, they had been persuaded that much better conditions waited for them in America than actually did. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
'''It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels."''' To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. '''Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families.''' Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate '''the candid nature of this entry''' because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). '''In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245).''' She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Ebethelhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-01-28T01:56:50Z<p>Ebethel: /* US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” */</p>
<hr />
<div>== US, 178-193, Devon Mihesuah, “’Too Dark to Be Angels’: The Class System among the Cherokees at the Female Seminary” ==<br />
<br />
One of the things that stood out to me in this article was the paradoxes. This was full of them regarding cherokee values as well as teachings. There seems to be great confusion between the pure bloods and mixed-bloods. For example, there were many mixed-blood instructors, but no traditional cherokee teachers, yet the school was based on cherokee values. Also, many of the teachers repressed Cherokee values, which seems to defeat the purpose of a cherokee boarding school. Also, a girl named Na-Li defended her honor in claiming that both of her parents were full cherokee, but many of the teachers did not teach traditional values so it seems like a frivolous concern. It appears to obtain a traditional cherokee eduaction when there were so many paradoxes between the people.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I was struck by the difference between the attitude towards Native American ancestry of the girls at the Cherokee Female Seminary (and for that matter, of the Cherokee nation as a whole during the 1800s) and modern Americans. In the nineteenth century, it was a desirable thing to have white blood, as it indicated that one was more civilized, and whiter Cherokees held a higher status than more full-blooded ones. Education at the seminary served to help the girls, even those who were full-blooded, become “whiter.” Now, white Americans, when discussing their ancestry, are extremely proud of even the tiniest bit of Native American blood they might contain. I can think of very few people with whom I’ve discussed ancestry with that don’t claim to have at least one Native American in the family, myself included. I think that perhaps it has something to do with our romantic view of Native Americans and a desire to show that we don’t feel animosity towards them any longer. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with Alice on her analysis in regards to pride about having Native American ancestry. There are also a number of other things that surprised me while reading this. I was surprised that the "mixed-blood" families were more accepted in society and received better. Though I understand their skin was lighter, in many cases even today, biracial or people with a variety of ethnic backgrounds are ostracized from both groups. I was also slightly surprised by the division among the Cherokee. Whether mixed-blood or not, I was expecting some sense of unity that did not occur. Looking back into history, many people remember their roots or where they came from, this is not the case in this situation. This alone could have proved detrimental to the efforts of Native Americans at this time.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
On page 190 of “Too Dark to be Angles,” I found these two sentences to be contradictory to the rest of the article. First, “The girls’ seminary experiences helped to strengthen their identities as Cherokees…” Second, “Both the progressive and the traditional tribal members considered themselves to be more Cherokee than the other group.” I think the reason that these sentences threw me off is because throughout the reading I the author gave numerous examples of how full-blooded Cherokees were discriminated against within the seminary. Those Cherokees that were mixed blooded were considered more intelligent because they were whiter. So, it just seems a little contradictory to argue that the seminary schools (that didn’t teach anything of the Cherokee language or culture) brought about a strong Cherokee identity to its students. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that the school did work to develop a Cherokee identity in its students, just not a traditional identity and not one that we would imagine as Cherokee today. Yes, some of the girls only had trace amounts of Cherokee ancestry, but they still identified strongly as Cherokee. It's just that they identified with an assimilated form of Cherokee identity, one that emulated white society. They ridiculed the darker, less assimilated girls not for being Cherokee per se, but for not embracing their version of what it meant to be Cherokee. As for the girls being bullied for their skin tone and traditions, they may have come to identify more strongly with their traditional Cherokee roots in the face of opposition. So both groups did maintain a connection to a Cherokee identity, it's just that, as the article states, "there were differences in opinion as to what a Cherokee really was." -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
While reading the article “Too Dark to Be Angels” I found that it parallels to the story of “Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884”. Both speak about the Indian women’s seminaries, it isn’t our-right spoken in Zitkala-Sa’s article, but it’s implied in her wanting to go East “crossed the Missouri in the evening…we stopped before a massive brick building,” (pg.241). I also found a parallel that men have taken advantage of women as objects here as well. “The Cherokee National Council was controlled by progressive, educated, mixed-blood tribesmen,” (pg. 178). Once again dictating what women learn about or shall act while in such seminary; to mold and bend them into what they see fit. ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
Another point I did not understand at first was why the darker girls, who had more Cherokee blood were being made fun of because of it. “Mixed-blood students frequently scorned those girls who had less white blood and darker skin,” (pg.180). Is this not a school for assimilation for the Cherokee girls? Reading further in I found that the women and girls of this school strive to be “equal” to white women, as “anything ‘white’ was ideal” stated Kate O’Donald Ringland, (pg.181). For this fact, to be as white as possible, the seminary’s repressed all Cherokee values and “offered no courses focusing on Cherokee culture,” (pg.178). ---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I think Erin brings up a great point that I did not catch myself. Although the schools did seem to instill a sense of Cherokee within in the women, I think the schools main accomplishment was the desire to be more "white", as Morgan points out. I think this was really emphasized through the perceptions of intelligence among the girls at the seminary and the teaching that was going on. As quoted on page 181, Albert Sydney Wyly "expressed his impatience with the full-blood girls by referring to the mixed-bloods as "whiter" and therefore "more intellectual". I think these schools were set up to Americanize the Native American population, rather than instill Cherokee ideals. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I found it truly disturbing that female teachers exemplified multiple cases of insensitivity throughout this reading. The teachers, though white, should have recognized the similarities between themselves and the Cherokee girls they were responsible for. At this point in time, women had few rights, neither did the Cherokee. It would have been more productive to encourage the young girls, in turn making it easier for them to assimilate, if that was in fact their main goal.--MDvorak<br />
<br />
What I thought was interesting about the Cherokee Indian Seminary for girls was that there was class difference within that Cherokee society. Those that looked more white versus those that did not basing emphasis on what amount of Cherokee the girls had in them. The more white blood in them, the better status they had at the seminary. Some of the girls did not even know their native language and others did might help explain some of the division. I don’t think the teachers helped with that either. These girls had pressures from what was expected of them in “white” roles and at the same time trying to maintain their traditional roles in Native American society. These girls being defined as either “full blooded“ and “mixed blood” became intermingled with the pressures to fit in. --Mhimes<br />
<br />
I found it surprising that the Cherokee National Council was made up Cherokee that were mostly mixed blood and prescribed to upper-class Southern antebellum values. Many of the girls who attended the seminary were from slave holding families. Considering that many of them ascribed to white values and had the appearance of whites, why did they even acknowledge themselves as Cherokee when they felt that Cherokee were inferior to whites? Why didn’t these girls just go to a regular school, leaving the more traditional, “uneducated” girls who wanted to learn about white society to go to the Cherokee seminaries? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in “Too Dark to be Angels,” that despite how many girls could have been traumatized by the racism against them, the seminary actually helped many girls get ahead in life. At the very end of the article, Mihesuah says “despite its shortcomings, the Cherokee seminary was unquestionably the catalyst for the prosperity of many Cherokee women and their families.” (p. 191) Yes, the seminary made it almost impossible to keep one’s culture, but at the same time, it made it possible for many girls to succeed who would not previously have been able to. The school taught subjects like latin and math that other white schools would have been teaching, thereby allowing Cherokee girls to take part in mainstream society. -- Angie<br />
<br />
I liked reading the essay "Too Dark to Be Angels." I thought there were multiple interesting points in the article. In particular I thought how the full-blood Cherokee girls were treated resembled what can be found at high schools even today. Some students today are still picked on because of their race or because they are of lower class. The reading talked about how the girls were sometimes left out because they were falling behind academically and were not able to go on outings with the older high school girls and also were unable to afford party clothes and/or after-dinner snacks. These types of things made the full-blood Cherokee girls feel inferior and they can also make girls in schools today feel left out or inferior to the upper class or other white females. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I really liked Amy's point above. Even back in 19th century Cherokee seminaries, there were still mean girl cliques. A tale as old as time... Also, I have the same questions as Taylor. Why did the girls consider themselves Cherokee still if they resembled and lived like the white southerners and felt inferior to them for being Cherokees.. I was astounded as to how European the girls in the photos looked, and then I read the captions where one stated the girls pictured were 1/32 Cherokee. I was quite shocked to learn how even those very distantly-related Cherokee girls considered themselves Cherokee even when they had never even heard the language or witnessed any tribal functions/ceremonies. - christine l<br />
<br />
It is interesting that both the mixed-blood and full-blood Cherokee girls in seminary identified with their Cherokee origins, and that each felt that they were the more “in touch” with their lineage than the other group. It seems that one’s perception of their identity had more of an impact on who they became than solely genetic factors. Those who had lighter skin knew that they had more options socially than those who were darker, because they fit in better with the notion that the white society was the more desirable. Yet at the same time, they did not identify completely with the white culture they sought to mix into, instead they wanted to be identified as Cherokee. I find it interesting as well that the society that had previously held the “one drop” policy that restricted African Americans did not seem to have the same effect on schooling for Native Americans (perhaps I missed that section in the readings but that struck me as slightly different)--jmarshal <br />
<br />
I agree with Christine L. the cliques inside the seminary were similar to the cliques we see today in movies such as Mean Girls, it shows that we have not changed much throughout history and that the class system exists with the influence of monetary status. The girls who were full-blood were not open to the full possibilites education had to offer because they were not able to attend primary school, but I found it interesting that they were still able to maintain good grades. While, some of the girls could not stay long in the seminary due to family or financial reasons they still maintained grades close to the mixed girls. I wondered how many students the seminary accepted? If there was a limit and even with the comments from the superintendent why were so many full-blooded girls accepted when they faced criticism for being themselves? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of the passages I found most striking in this article involved the feelings of inferiority that were internalized by the students, particularly those who had more Cherokee blood. Na-li expresses happily that "My complexion does not prevent me from acquiring knowledge and being useful hereafter." [p. 182] That they were so able to associate their own heritage and skin color with their inferior social standing demonstrates the ways that the seminary failed them culturally. On page 185, a male Cherokee seminary graduate celebrates his "whiteness" and says "it is the white blood that made us what we are." It just seems like a pretty high price to pay to find success outside of the Cherokee community. - Erin B.<br />
<br />
== US, 194-220, Paige Raibmon, “The Practice of Everyday Colonialism: Indigenous Women at Work in the Hop Fields and Tourist Industry of Puget Sound” ==<br />
<br />
Like Alice, I was struck at how the view of Native Americans has changed. Paige Raibmon mentions in her article how Native American women in the 19th century were seen a subhuman because they could "endure childbirth painlessly" (199). This excuse was used to justify using them for hard manual labor. I was also shocked to discover that the Native Americans picking hops were not seen as laborers, but instead were objects for tourists to gawk at. Finally, Mihesuah mentions in her article several times that the Native Americans saw themselves as being less intelligent and less culturally valuable than whites. As Alice mentions, now many Americans glorify their Native American heritage. It seems that now we are still influenced by the same views as the white 19th century tourists were. Many Americans see their Native American ancestry as a sense of freedom and a reminder of simpler times and simply ignore the hardships their ancestors went through.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the act that a pregnancy didn’t slow down Indigenous women from working and that the managers would pay their workers for giving birth for working. “Ezra Meeker, who paid a dollar to employees who gave birth while working on his farm, new mothers where back in the fields within two days, babies at their sides,” (pg.199). I cannot believe that this really happened!---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found that the Indigenous women were also seen as a tourist attraction too, “the spectacle of authentic Indians,” (pg.201) as if people had never seen such a thing. These people, who use to dominate the population of their American homeland were now the minority and seen as passive tourist luxuries. The “curios” that the Indigenous women created were now being bought by white women and seen as a foreign object to add to the look of their homes, “no home is complete now-a-days without a neat and artistically arranged Indian basket corner,” (pg.203). These women really seen as a sideshow in that “viewing and assessing migrant Indian women’s labor and lives became one of the pleasurable acts of public consumption through with women constituted themselves as modern,” (pg.203).---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
To me, this article highlighted a change in the way that Americans viewed Native Americans. In the span of a few decades, white Americans went from fearing the 'savages' to planning vacations around watching the newly docile Native Americans working on the hops farms. And the perception of Native American women played a large role in that shift. Women were often the ones in the fields working, picking hops with babies and children nearby and so providing a domestic front that replaced the old warrior image. Women also made many of the crafts that became popular with the white tourists. Their work became the must have pieces in white middle class homes, and suddenly Native Americans were seen as the producers of mildly exotic talking pieces rather than a threat to family and farm. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Indigenous women workers were often engaged in “traditional culture” and “modern labor” at the same time. But what defines “traditional?” The author writes, “workers frequently used income from ‘modern’ wage labor to meet ‘traditional’ obligations to kin and community and to invest in Indigenous economies” (196). Wage labor didn’t assimilate these Indians, as they just used the money to maintain their culture. But in the case of meeting obligations to kin, Indian wage laborers weren’t really different than any other wage laborer. Also, couldn’t an Indian woman who gets paid to pick hops but also weaves a basket to sell be comparable to a white woman who gets paid to work in a factory but also sews a quilt to sell? Both weaving and sewing could be considered "traditional" activities, so wouldn't that mean that whites could also simultaneously engage in "traditional culture" and "modern labor?" -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
"Squaw drudges who failed to embody the proper gendered division of labor were implicitly to blame for both their own oppression and men's dissolution" (p. 199). These working class Indigenous women were trying to support their families in any way possible, but of course they were still expected to remain in the home, in the private sphere. When they were seen working harder than men, they were immediately blamed for all of the men's laziness instead of being praised for their hard labor and determintion to support their families. They were especially looked down on when they accepted money from tourists who treated them as "tourist attractions" (p. 201). However, as the article mentions, this income was often more reliable than what they received for fieldwork. I think this gives us a good glimpse at the society of the late nineteenth century, where people expected the impossible and never considered the reality. Today these women are known for all the hard labor they went through to support their families and to survive, hardly what they were known for during their time. I think we also try to remember the discrimination and obstacles they faced as an indigenous peoples. They were not seen as normal, everyday people, but as "field hands,"vanishing Indians" (p.201), tourist attractions, "subjects" for photographs (p. 202), and manual laborers. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I was really struck by the way the author said that indigenous women at this time were “dehumanized.” I had never really thought about it in that context, but it is true with the way white women thought about Indians. Because they were closely affiliated with nature and because of the belief that they didn’t feel pain during childbirth, they were no longer women or even really human. This is why it was so easy for white women to treat them as a sort of spectacle as opposed to real people. They acted the complete opposite from how women were supposed to act. - Angie<br />
<br />
I really couldn't believe the way the indigenous people, women in particular were viewed and treated by the white people. I can't believe that groups of people actually went to where the laborers were working to watch and see a "real" "tradtional" Native American. So these white families or individuals went to look at them for fun and then scrutinized those same workers for what they bought with their money, what clothes they wore, and how they tried to act more "white?" I thought that was crazy. I think the white Americans should really have thought of something better to do with their time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== MP, 252-258-- Deena Gonzalez, “Life and Legend of Gertrudis Barcelo in 19th C. Sante Fe” (2005) ==<br />
<br />
In reading "The Life and Legend of Getrudis Barcelo in the Ninteenth-Century Santa Fe," I was very intrigued how different life seemed to be out in the western United States. He mentions how people like Barcelo had simply gone into a town and were occassionally able to change it. Gonzalez openly discusses brothels, gambling, and other activities that were not seen as much in the eastern United States. The most interesting fact was that "women were expected to defer to men but did not." This appears very different to the rest of the U.S. where the gender roles were very strict. It seems that out west it was much easier to live a more care-free life.-Afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that Gertrudis Barceló was a really cool woman for her time! She was a smart businesswoman who made a lot of money and owned a lot of property. One of her more profitable endeavors was opening a saloon (p255), “she made the saloon the hub of the town’s social and economic life and at the hall she kept abreast of the latest political developments.” Her success gave her independence, but also violated female codes of behavior of the time. However, the author gives Gertrudis Barceló a lot of credit that the saloon was an establishment where men who spoke different languages could come together and gamble and drink, and as they did this stereotypes were broken and fears and prejudices eroded. I am curious as to how intentional this was on the part of Gertrudis Barceló. Was she truly trying to break barriers, or was she looking to capitalize on the situation and make money? Does it really matter? – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I just wanted to throw in that I googled Gertrudis Barceló after doing the reading, and I found it interesting that she sided with the Americans during the war. She gave the Americans valuable information and even loaned them money. I think it is pretty clear that she was incredibly intelligent. (source: http://www.britannica.com/hispanic_heritage/article-9124916) -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the story of Doña Gertrudis Barceló in that she was a woman who took charge and made something of herself unlike the white women who were quick to subdue themselves to men. “her success as a business women and gambler gave her unique independence ordinarily denied women,” (pg.254). Even as a women she was seen as so successful and powerful that “politicians and military officers alike went seeking her opinion or involved her in their discussions about trade or the army,” (pg.255). Never before have I heard of a women being consulted by military men and political men! Barceló also helped in integrating people among different cultures, “she set the stage as well for the second, when women began marrying the newcomers,” (pg.257). I really see Barceló as a role model type no matter if she was into gambling and possibly running a brothel, she was able to make a name for herself even as a woman.---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
I found this reading on Gertrudis Barcelo very, very interesting! Her story seemed very inspiring and I thought her impact on the Euro-American settlers was quite profound. I think an important point that was made in the piece is how quick American settlers were to judge peoples they had never met. I liked how Barcelo was a woman who was able to help these new protestant men adapt, for lack of a better term to a new society, "They could judge the locals firsthand and could observe a community's values and habits through a single activity, After they had a few drinks, their initial fears and prejudices gradually yielded to the relaxed, sociable atmosphere of the gambling hall..."(257) Although, I do think it is important to realize that this is just one snapshot of a woman going above and beyond what was typically expected of a woman. I agree with Morgan, she was definitely able to make a name for herself, especially in the presence of white men who probably viewed themselves as racially and culturally superior. -abratchi<br />
<br />
I thought Gertrudis Barceló was very interesting because she was innovative and smart. She was Spanish and stood out from those traditional female American roles. I don’t think she bought into that same notion that some women did of what was expected of them. Her business was a lucrative one and she seized opportunities to make money. If she had been a man we would have never heard about her. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I thought that the thing that stood out from this article the most wasn't just her personal account of what had happened to her, but rather the statement on page 256 "To the protestant mind, nothing short of the complete elimination of gambling would lift New Mexicans out of their servility and make them worthy of United States citizenship. The Jacksonian Americans wanted to replace gambling with industry and enterprise" because this statement can be tweaked in so many different ways throughout American history so that the "(White) Protestants" can use their alleged superiority to promote morals within a different racial or ethnic group. Yet, I'd be willing to believe that white protestants could be found partaking in said gambling. --Ssellers<br />
<br />
Gertrudis Barceló was undeniably a fascinating, intelligent and successful woman. One of the things that amused me as I read her story was the reasoning behind her antagonists' animosity. For her fellow Spanish-American women, jealous of her success and freedom, slandered her whenever they could (p. 254). I also found it interesting that for some Protestants, despite the fact that she was industrious and resourceful, the means of her wealth made her unworthy of her praise. While for others, like Josiah Gregg, Barceló was admirable, despite the saloon and gambling, because her money "eventually helped elevate her moral character" (253). -- kokeefe<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin’s diary about her first days in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
<br />
Susan Shelby seems to find the positive in living in and travelling through New Mexico and the West, unlike Mrs. A. M. Green. This is probably due to the fact that she keeps herself busy with housework, improving her Spanish, and getting to know the locals. I enjoyed reading the prejudices Shelby believes of the Mexicans. She is surprised to find that her Mexican servant, who she was quick to call "one of the numbskulls" (p. 234), is actually quite smart and picks up on things very quickly. She also realizes the Mexicans' intelligence when they offer her useful help and advice with things that Shelby believes may be "the first of the kind they have ever seen" (p. 235). Shelby also seems to imply that the Mexicans are gaudy and extravagant with their parties when she is describing the managerie. It is important to note that she is surprised to discover that when rich Mexicans "attend a place of the kind to take a servant along and while sitting to use them as an article of furniture" (p. 236). To me, this appears to be the point where Shelby is realizing that even the Mexicans have a hierarchal system; they are not all stupid servants. Another highlight of Shelby's diary is where she points out her place in society - well, more like her place in the home, really. On Friday the 4th, she writes about putting all of her energy, and her servant's energy in to cleaning the house. She is determined to do her "duty so well so as to gain one bright smile and sweet kiss from [her] good, kind husband" (p. 234). I think this is a great example of the separate spheres and the idea that these women had of making the homes perfect, romanticized places for their husbands to return. Apparently it is so serious, she may not receive her husband's acceptance and affection when he returns home! Although, it seems like that would be due to her punishing herself rather than a punishment from her husband. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
== Rape of Indian women in CA, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The anonymous account of the Rape of Indian women was interesting and upsetting. The writer is obviously outraged by the egregious acts of the “supposed” United States Officers and their utter lack of respect for the Native Americans. In my opinion there were two messages posted in this letter. The obvious issue with the rape of course, but the writer also makes a point to note “Whether he found a fit subject to practice his virtuous and civilizing purposes, the writer in not informed.” (p 237) This seems like an intentional dig at the “civilizing” practices of the Americans in regards to the natives. The writer illustrates the irony in these practices through his letter; rape is an uncivilized and immoral act, in this case perpetrated by the very people who are attempting to “civilize” the native people of the land. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see that this was published in a newspaper. While it is upsetting, disgusting, immoral, etc. I wouldn't think that newspapers of the time would have had the courage to publish such a piece against the stationed soldiers. It does go to show that people were taking note of the uncivilized nature of the Americans (as Caryn said) and the irony of the whole situation. Would something like this be followed up on by law enforcement, or simply shrugged off? - christine l<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-1876 ==<br />
<br />
Through the whole of the Sale of Chinese Prostitutes documents the women were used as objects of prostitution to their owners to which they owed money to. What I do not understand is why did these women so easily give over the use of their body for such little owed money for such a long period of time? And I highly doubt any of the three women actually fulfilled their time of four years thus adding more years onto the sentence. And why would they let themselves be prostituted for borrowing such a little amount of money? $630, $470, $503, all under a thousand and yet they had to serve for 4 years in each instance. Shouldn’t they stick up for themselves and get an actual job to pay back the loan? That brings me to another idea, why did these loaners want prostitution for re-payment and not let them get a job to pay it back, possibly quicker?---Morgan M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with what Morgan said for the most part, but I wonder if the women weren't giving themselves up so easily, but rather they were ignorant to the fact that the sum of money they were receiving was so little. I also found it very offensive that the bills mentioned that if a woman got pregnant while she was serving as a prostitute she would have a lengthened period when 1- she didn't get pregnant by herself (meaning that the future child could be of benefit to the father in some way, or is at least still his responsibility) and 2- you can still have sex and be a prostitute while you are pregnant.... -Ssellers<br />
<br />
I think an important fact for us to consider while reading "Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes" is that these amounts owed were a lot more back then. I do not believe any of these women wanted to sell themselves, but had no other option. America was the land of opportunity and even if they had to be indebted and prostituted first, nothing would keep them from these opportunities. As for Morgan's question about prostitution for re-payment, the mistresses probably made decent money from their prostitutes. I wondered if perhaps the mistresses kept the immigrants for four years because they might have been able to use the immigrants’ ignorance and accrue more money than was actually owed. --kokeefe<br />
<br />
I agree that in 1875-1876 $630 a lot of money. I googled the historical value of money and $1 was worth about $14.85 meaning that $630 was equivalent to over $9300. It is unfortunate that these women had to sell themselves but that may have been the only option that they could see for themselves at the time. –Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
I can't speak to Chinese attitudes towards prostitution in the second half of the nineteenth century, but we talked about prostitution and courtesans in my Gender in Chinese History class during the eighteenth century, and they had a different view of it than we do. Certainly, they felt that it was best to be a respectable wife and mother, but courtesans and prostitutes weren't merely sex objects, most were educated and trained in the fine arts. Sometimes they didn't even sleep with their clients, but would just sit down and write poetry or play music with them. Many of these women were famous for their beauty and learning, even their morality. Of course, I'm not by any means trying to glorify prostitution, but still, these immigrant Chinese women may have come to the United States with a different idea of what being a prostitute meant, and that's why they agreed to it, combined with the practical concern of getting themselves to America. - Alice W<br />
<br />
I agree with many of the comments above regarding money and how at the time it was quite a large amount to spend but I found interesting how the numbers were so precise, ie. with Loi Yau her amount was $503 for four and half years(p. 238). How did the mistresses come up with the numbers, was $503 the exact amount for travel, lodging, etc.? I also question if the women really understood everything they were in for, like kokeefe mentioned America was the land for opportunity-it may have been a better life here than in China. The women were able to live in America without debt and be free to do as they pleased once their servitude was complete. I do not think prostitution is the way to go or an ideal life choice, but for the women maybe it was a means of escape. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to read this account after reading "Too Dark to be Angels." To me it is sad that this little girl was so eager to go, but kids I guess are naturally curious, and on top of that she had probably already subconsciously absorbed much of the pressure to assimilate. It's telling that the little girl compares herself to the "young of a wild creature" (241) while on the train to school. The mother decides to send her daughter to the school because she knows there will one day soon be "fewer real Dakotas" and "more palefaces" (240), an environment that would force her daughter to assimilate. Perhaps she thought sending her to school at such a young age would save her the pain of having to give up her traditions later in life. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of Frontier Life, 1887 ==<br />
<br />
I think that Mrs. A. M. Green’s account of frontier life is really touching because it is probably an example of what so many other women were going through. Although some probably had the sense of adventure to want to go exploring out west, I’m sure many were perfectly fine staying in the east with their families. Green’s sadness but resolve to put on a happy face for her husband is an example of how women were the rock of their families and despite severe emotional turmoil, they were forced to overcome it and remain the strong person that would hold the family together. - Angie<br />
<br />
I agree Angie, it is hard to imagine the shock that Mrs. Green felt moving to such an unfamiliar territory with her husband and two young children. This account did portray her as a brave woman persevering in a rather bleak situation. She could have accepted her husband’s offer to return home but her loyalty was stronger than her desire for comfort. I also appreciate the candid nature of this entry because she does express vulnerability and tenderness. -Caryn<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg, Ex-Slave and Former Army Nurse, requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==<br />
<br />
I was intrigued about the article on Violet Cragg’s travels, because I wrote a paper on the United States Sanitary Commission last semester, and Violet was a former army nurse. It was evident that life in the army was very hectic as she traveled many places and moved around constantly. It made sense that she traveled so much for nursing because women were essentially the only nurses at the time and helped bring it to the forefront as a profession- Afrisk<br />
<br />
In Violet’s article I saw her being an object of politics, such as her being sold and moved so many times. I also suspect that she was raped especially because of the tone around the situation of her daughter’s birth that she describes: “the father of my daughter, Mrs. Ella Taylor, was Howard Whitney, a white man. I was never supported by him and was never know as his wife and never lived with him as his wife,” (pg.243). In her appeal for a pension I didn't quite understand why she decided to write so much about her life, is this because she wanted to Pension Office as much information as possible? I found that she's also quite demeaning of herself, such as stating plainly “I cannot write,” (pg. 245). She seems to think very little of herself, when she should think highly of herself having been dealt with so many trial and tribulations in her life.---Morgan M.</div>Ebethel Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38