Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=LtaggartMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:33:20ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-01T17:20:13Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the "burglery". - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of "slush funds." Correct terms were also used, like "Woodstein" and "Deep throat." Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting "four more years" at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen's story at a McDonald's, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald's Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-01T17:15:44Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of "slush funds." Correct terms were also used, like "Woodstein" and "Deep throat." Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting "four more years" at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen's story at a McDonald's, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald's Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-17T16:48:11Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T12:43:39Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
'''Role of African-Americans '''<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. '''It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice.''' The movie also showed how the '''boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants.''' This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to '''show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism''' to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with '''car pooling''' others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they '''refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten.''' Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
'''The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott.''' Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. '''Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools.''' --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The scene where she was taking off her shoes and they were bloddy from walking really depicted how Afican Americans were determined to go on with the boycott. When she walked like 12 miles and never complained was really awesome. Even when that women was talking about the laziness of balck women she said nothing and I was really impressed. Whoopi played a really strong woman and I really liked it.- LEAnn<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that '''the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus.''' After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
Right from the beginning, they accurately portrayed how blacks got on the bus: they had to go in through the front to pay their dime and then get off and go to the back to actually on. '''I thought they were going to pull away right after Whoopi payed her dime. Also, they showed how many white seats were available when the black were standing room only.''' Also, they showed how there was so many people at the church when MLK was speaking; even after walking all day long, Whoopi had no problem standing outside, where she couldn't even see anything, to be inspired by MLK's words. Also, I thought it was a little strange how her son, who was super excited to go to the rally, had no emotional response, or even physical (i.e. facial expression changes) during the speech. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a very good job a showing how racism wasn't over after the 1900's rolled around. Many of the people in the South maintained the view that blacks were not as good as white and in some fashion, they were less capable as whites. I think people have a tendency to think that racism hasn't been an issue for a long time, because many of us grew up that way, but racism was still rampant in the South less that 60 years ago. I think that film does a good job in showing that the fight for freedom wasn't over after the Civil War. I also liked how they didn't use a lot of hollywood drama, the basic story was enough to keep us all interested. And '''I also thought it was interesting how Goldberg's character barely had any lines even though she was essentially the main character.''' I thought that really helped portray the silence they all had to keep. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''White racism'''<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the '''racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation'''. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? '''I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it.''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how '''the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate.''' Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
First of all, '''I really liked this movie because it managed to make me incredibly angry about what was happening, even though I knew that the outcome was positive. I wish we had been able to see every hateful person in the film get what's coming to them. That being said, I respect the filmmakers immensely because they chose not to do that - it's much more realistic that way.''' I was so angry and frustrated with what I saw in the film, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. Anyway, I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. '''I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa.''' I thought '''''the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives''''' - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Miriam made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Miriam responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Miriam's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. '''As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor.''' Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Miriam says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It '''showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites.''' The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
'''One thing I thought was very interesting was that the movie showed how <em>some</em> whites were 1)oblivious to the seriousness of race issues 2) racists because they simply didn't know or 3) were followers to others thinking.''' Miriam's husband is a prime example of this. At first he doesn't really know/seem to care about the boycott. However as time goes on he becomes a follower to trends and popular thought. Also Miriam her self starts off as a racist by culture. She grew up in a racist environment and so didn't know, yet as times changed she began to form her own opinions (unlike her wimpy husband, man that guy was a wuss). -Isaac<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The scene where the Thompson's are eating Christmas dinner and discussing the boycott was extremely accurate. The line that stood out to me, however, was when they talked about how the boycott showed that there was a connection with the communists. The idea of the black community working with the communists was something that only heightened the fears of the southern whites like we talked about in class. Also, the Theo's reaction to the white boys beating him up when he tries to help and refuses to fight back embodies MLK's teachings. Earlier in the film he is extremely excited to go to the rally and his actions while he is being beaten shows that he truly listened and believed what MLK taught. -Melissa<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Role of women'''<br />
<br />
I think that '''the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts.''' Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also '''depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s'''. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. '''Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it'''…-Caryn<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. '''During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott?''' -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really '''excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families.''' In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Depictions of different races in South'''<br />
<br />
'''The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society.''' Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. '''Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work.''' Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''There was a comment in the film that struck and that was when Odessa mentioned people from the nearby base (Maxwell) helping the the car pool. I had never heard of this and tried to find more information about it and this is what I found. "it became clear to me, that the success of this transportation system was made possible by the Korean War GI's, who used their experience in the army's "motor pools" specifically and the army generally, to perform the maintenance of the automobiles and become the hard core of the drivers that sustained this transportation system for a year." [http://www.holtlaborlibrary.org/BusBoycott.htm Roland Sheppard] That was it. ''My question is, if this was the case why isn't more talked about this?'' This makes thing more complicated.''' Also, the movie was accurate in having Miriam drive Odessa to work. From the Virginia Durr readings she pointed out this was the case for many women. However, many of them stopped because of outside pressures. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. '''In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased.''' Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the '''negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses.''' Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. '''When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus.''' Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
'''When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white kids off?''' -afrisk<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but '''did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott?''' It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but '''I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes''' in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. '''I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting.''' They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Wasn't quite sure where to put this because it was a question I had but it goes with overall success of the film. '''How often were middle/upper-class white women involved in civil rights actions like Sissy Spacek's character? While I'm sure there were women who supported the Civil Rights I have to wonder how many of them actually put themselves out there (especially in Montgomery) in places like the carpool.''' While I enjoyed the film a lot and thought it accurately portrayed many things now that I am thinking about it Spacek's character seems to be more of a trope than was perhaps reality of the situation (but I could be wrong).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:26, 10 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Nobody casually smokes except for the "bad guy." I mean come on...it was the '60s. Even the Flintstones smoked''' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A]. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
'''''Role of Wikipedia in commenting here?'''''<br />
<br />
The film was '''released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting.''' Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the '''World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life.''' The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare''' "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one.''' Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. '''"Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note.''' --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
'''I agree with Rachel, I thought it was interesting to see how the writers and directors didn't shy away from the racial slurs.''' It definitely added to the harshness of the film and was an important choice on the makers of this film. Perhaps people were becoming more aware of the racism that many blacks still suffered during the time and they felt it was important to express the fullness of this. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
'''One thing this film certainly address is the role of women in the Civil Rights movement. Odessa and Miriam had two of the most active roles in the film, and were directly depicted not only as the films protagonists but also as driving forces (no pun intended) behind the success of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Yet how does this comment on the culutre of 1990s America? Well ''according to *mumble* Wikipedia *mumble*'' there was a rise in feminism in the '90s.''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s] '''This film certainly shows women in a strong light, especially depicting Miriam standing up to her husband at the end.''' Odessa is shown also as an equal head of her household as well as the one who keeps everything together. Another striking image is the final one of the maids all standing up and singing to the Citzen's Council, and Miriam husband's inability to save his own wife. In the end the women stood up for themselves and succeeded. Therefore this film comments on the role of women in cultural change and politicals showing their track record of success and help. On a side note, every time Odessa's husband talked all I could hear was Marcel Wallace talking.-Isaac Whalen<br />
'''<br />
<br />
One review that I found particulary interesting, was from Roger Ebert, who said that if the movie had been made 10 or 20 years earlier, most of the movie would have focused on the white family and Odessa, and ignored the black family.''' (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19910322/REVIEWS/103220301/1023) ''He also takes an interesting tack concerning the daughter. He says her only role is, "apparently to reassure white audiences the movie is "really" intended for them." The narrator was an unecessary touch, but the daughter, in my opinion, provided an innocent view of the conflict around her and her raw emotion contributed to the film.'' - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
'''The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws.''' Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. '''These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas.''' It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
'''The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film.''' The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
'''“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along.''' Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
'''Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement.''' ''The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity.'' --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In Alice Brantley's statement, Sarah Keys was arrested for her refusal to move to the rear of the bus. This event was very similar to what Rosa Parks faced more than a year later. '''These two events proved that black women had an important involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.''' - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now." Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
'''Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans.''' Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But '''I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think '''the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s.''' The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. '''Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter.''' -Megan W.<br />
<br />
'''I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility.''' Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''MLK''' <br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but '''I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing'''. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think '''not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement.''' They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
To go along with the MLK question, I actually didn't mind that he wasn't shown. His role in this story was relatively minor. He was there for the people when they went to the meetings and gave them motivation to continue the boycott. I think the story itself was more focused on other aspects of the boycott, how it affected the people of Montgomery. I think it was successful in doing that through '''Odessa and Miriam''' (sp?). The movie shows the struggles both women had during this period, whether it be physical or social. '''If the film focused to much on MLK it would have taken away from this dynamic.''' - Jenn</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-03T13:09:07Z<p>Ltaggart: /* How is the movie title subtly ironic? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played ion the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-03T13:01:59Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played ion the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-03T12:53:20Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-03T12:47:57Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T19:18:45Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T19:16:20Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T20:03:47Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T19:55:36Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T22:00:39Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T21:52:27Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T21:16:34Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:35:16Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves. They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:28:27Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As my fellow classmates have said Scarlett is an annoying idiot but she does portray the idea of the old south that women were delicate. She faints every five minutes and her aunt every two minutes so it does show the supposed delicacy of women. It also shows how women might not be able to breath in the first place by the scene with Scarlett and the servent where she is getting her corset tied. The movie also depicts how dangerous having a baby was in those days because Scarlett was terrified that Melanie would die. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Though this might sound wrong, my historical snob alter-ego was satisfied when the characters were killed off by disease instead of tomahawk. Much less exciting, but so historically pleasing. Additionally, the portrayal of Southern men after the war was pretty accurate. Mr. O'Hara clearly suffers from a bruised ego and depression. The men all return with a form of PTSD and regrets. Going along with this, the film also depicts the excitement of many men to go to war. They saw it as an adventure instead of a brutal atrocity. Lastly, the hospital scene showed the chaotic and brutal nature of war. Amputations, lack of pain killers, no sanitation, and lack of doctors and nurses are all included. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves. They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T01:40:21Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T01:34:50Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T01:28:09Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T22:30:26Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson leads his militia in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T22:25:57Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson leads his militia in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T22:19:28Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson leads his militia in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T02:13:43Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T02:08:36Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-01T20:55:48Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Pocahontas, Disney Movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
==Pocahontas, Disney Movie== <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T19:32:41Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 092009-12-02T21:27:41Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== ''Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at The Office Clerk by Clara Lanza many things stand out to me. This piece is justifying the use of women as clerks. However, this justification feeds into the women’s assumed gender roles during that time period as much as the men’s justification as to why women should not be clerks. Both arguments use the overarching gender roles of the time. Men argue that women should remain in the home and be good wives and raise their children, they also argue that women fidget, they become anxious, they are temperamental, they giggle, and so on… these characteristics all fit into what women were presumed to be like. The counter this argument, Clara Lanza believes that women are more reliable than men, they come to work when sick, they don’t complain, and they can do all of this while being great wives. Both sides to this argument use what everyone would agree are characteristics of women of that time and the roles people expected them to play, just in different ways. This is similar to the arguments for and against women abolitionists and reformers, it is very interesting how gender roles can be used as justifications for different things. Based off of the readings about women’s roles as activists for women’s rights I can tell that the same use of gender roles as justifications for and against the movement being used here as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that "Among the woman workers in New York there are none who afford a more interesting study than the vast army of clerks, the work of a clerk being admirably adapted to the sex." While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women's work, their reliability, and the ways in which they can be trusted- I also wonder if, at this time, there were beginning to be notions of differences between "sex" and "gender", one of the arguments, I think, of the feminist movement during the 20th Century, with gender being thought of as very much socially constructed. It almost seems like Ms. Lanza would make many of those in the women's movement at the time or the feminist movement today kind of angry- it seems as if in many ways she is very much defending the gender roles and stereotypes about women. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
I really liked Sadie's story. I thought it was neat how she talked about her social activities outside of work- going to school at night and to the synagogue, having her fortune read by a fortune teller, and going out with Henry, to the theater, or dancing or to Coney Island. She seems like the quintessential "new" young woman of the early twentieth century- she is independent, able to save her money, and not ready to settle down and marry Henry, even though he wants her to. She seems very content with her situation right now and her life as it is- as if she is not ready for things to change just yet and is enjoying the benefits of her hard work and her independence. I really kind of admire her! -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I loved Sadie's story. She is a very practical person. She saves money and she knows how to have fun. I was a little disturbed by the matter or fact way she talks about getting her finger caught in the needle and how it could result in a broken bone or dismemberment. She did not seem concerned that it could happen to her. I think it is funny that she keeps putting Henry off and that she does not want to get married. I admire her independence. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in ''History of Woman Suffrage'' ==<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in Political Lessons take a unique and direct approach to gain women’s suffrage. Based off of their arguments, I can see why they may have been threatening. They argue that women, in all actuality, are quiet geniuses, unable to voice their opinions and they are frustrated. This goes completely against the gender roles of the time, which perceive women to be inferior people who were meant to stay home and care for her family who didn’t really have any real political opinions of her own and who followed their husband’s views. I also think that it was very bold for them to bring up topics such as class and race, and relate them to women's gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
In Shoemakers of Lynn, these women seemed very robust and seemed to want to do things that man does (such as chew tobacco and spit on the floor) and not be judged that it was not a “lady like” thing to do. It’s interesting that she refers to women as slaves to men. What I thought stood out was when she spoke about women who are married, that they have no need for anything and have no idea the oppression that those who were not married had to face. -Marsha<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
I still think that it is a little weird whenever I hear about a woman who did not want rights or did not see them as important to have. Maybe they couldn't miss something they never had? In the document, she argued that if women were given rights they would have become tools, made irrational decisions, and be less likely to defend the nation. She also says that women are born graceful and soft and therefore could never do the work that rough men do. If I were a woman in the late Nineteenth Century, I would have just wanted to be seen as an equal to men and know that I would be treated fairly in court or receive an equal distribution of property or wealth from my deceased husband. I wouldn't consider those two examples as doing "the work of the virile virtues of men." - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found what Amelia Barr wrote very interesting. She’s not against discontented women in the working class fighting for better wages but rather against women in the political realm. I think she’s saying women are too fickle to make political decisions like decisions of war and that law would be in danger in the hands of women. Another point, I think she tried to make is that when a women steps out of the “domestic sphere” she put herself at risk for being criticized by a man (creating animosity) and Barr believed only women should criticize other women. - Marsha<br />
<br />
I disagree with pretty much everything she has to say but I can totally see the women of her time agreeing with her. She promotes stereotypes which annoys me. She asks if women get what they want and if they are allowed to work as men whether they will be happy. She asks if men's work is less tiresome then women's. Basically, isn't work just work? These are definitely interesting questions. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's piece, the reader gets the idea that she obviously thinks there is more to women than being housewives and mothers. She argues that women should be able to participate in society and not be stuck at home. The idea of a "home-husband" was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, "Never was any such idiot on earth as this hypothetical home-husband. It was not in him to stay in such primitive restrictions. But he has been quite willing to leave his wife in that interestingly remote period." Men are so adamant about keeping females inside the home but having the roles be reversed would be out of the question. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_15_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 15 Questions/Comments-327 092009-12-02T21:16:58Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== ''Woloch, Chapter 13, Urban Wage Earners'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Helen Campbell, 1893, study on NY wage laborers, “Shop Girls and Piece Workers” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Lucy Maynard Salmon, 1897, Vassar Historian who studied domestic service ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isabel Eaton, 1899, research on black servants in Philadelphia ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Lanza, 1891, defends the female office clerk in NY ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Looking at The Office Clerk by Clara Lanza many things stand out to me. This piece is justifying the use of women as clerks. However, this justification feeds into the women’s assumed gender roles during that time period as much as the men’s justification as to why women should not be clerks. Both arguments use the overarching gender roles of the time. Men argue that women should remain in the home and be good wives and raise their children, they also argue that women fidget, they become anxious, they are temperamental, they giggle, and so on… these characteristics all fit into what women were presumed to be like. The counter this argument, Clara Lanza believes that women are more reliable than men, they come to work when sick, they don’t complain, and they can do all of this while being great wives. Both sides to this argument use what everyone would agree are characteristics of women of that time and the roles people expected them to play, just in different ways. This is similar to the arguments for and against women abolitionists and reformers, it is very interesting how gender roles can be used as justifications for different things. Based off of the readings about women’s roles as activists for women’s rights I can tell that the same use of gender roles as justifications for and against the movement being used here as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree a lot with Erin. Ms. Lanza states in the beginning of her response that "Among the woman workers in New York there are none who afford a more interesting study than the vast army of clerks, the work of a clerk being admirably adapted to the sex." While I think expected gender roles play a large part- the exactness of women's work, their reliability, and the ways in which they can be trusted- I also wonder if, at this time, there were beginning to be notions of differences between "sex" and "gender", one of the arguments, I think, of the feminist movement during the 20th Century, with gender being thought of as very much socially constructed. It almost seems like Ms. Lanza would make many of those in the women's movement at the time or the feminist movement today kind of angry- it seems as if in many ways she is very much defending the gender roles and stereotypes about women. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Leonara Barry, on what the Knights of Labor are doing for women, 1888 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sadie Frome, 1902, “Story of a Sweatshop Girl” ==<br />
<br />
I really liked Sadie's story. I thought it was neat how she talked about her social activities outside of work- going to school at night and to the synagogue, having her fortune read by a fortune teller, and going out with Henry, to the theater, or dancing or to Coney Island. She seems like the quintessential "new" young woman of the early twentieth century- she is independent, able to save her money, and not ready to settle down and marry Henry, even though he wants her to. She seems very content with her situation right now and her life as it is- as if she is not ready for things to change just yet and is enjoying the benefits of her hard work and her independence. I really kind of admire her! -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I loved Sadie's story. She is a very practical person. She saves money and she knows how to have fun. I was a little disturbed by the matter or fact way she talks about getting her finger caught in the needle and how it could result in a broken bone or dismemberment. She did not seem concerned that it could happen to her. I think it is funny that she keeps putting Henry off and that she does not want to get married. I admire her independence. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== ''Woloch, Chapter 16, Woman Suffrage/Women’s Rights'' ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Julia Ward Howe, 1899, Reminiscences ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Stanton and Anthony, 1882, piece in ''History of Woman Suffrage'' ==<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in Political Lessons take a unique and direct approach to gain women’s suffrage. Based off of their arguments, I can see why they may have been threatening. They argue that women, in all actuality, are quiet geniuses, unable to voice their opinions and they are frustrated. This goes completely against the gender roles of the time, which perceive women to be inferior people who were meant to stay home and care for her family who didn’t really have any real political opinions of her own and who followed their husband’s views. I also think that it was very bold for them to bring up topics such as class and race, and relate them to women's gender roles. I can see why this could be appealing for some and scary for others. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
<br />
== Frances Ellen (Watkins) Harper, 1866 Woman’s Rights convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shoe women of Lynn, MA, 1874 ==<br />
In Shoemakers of Lynn, these women seemed very robust and seemed to want to do things that man does (such as chew tobacco and spit on the floor) and not be judged that it was not a “lady like” thing to do. It’s interesting that she refers to women as slaves to men. What I thought stood out was when she spoke about women who are married, that they have no need for anything and have no idea the oppression that those who were not married had to face. -Marsha<br />
<br />
== Amelia Barr, (novelist and married) 1896, Speaks out against female suffrage ==<br />
I still think that it is a little weird whenever I hear about a woman who did not want rights or did not see them as important to have. Maybe they couldn't miss something they never had? In the document, she argued that if women were given rights they would have become tools, made irrational decisions, and be less likely to defend the nation. She also says that women are born graceful and soft and therefore could never do the work that rough men do. If I were a woman in the late Nineteenth Century, I would have just wanted to be seen as an equal to men and know that I would be treated fairly in court or receive an equal distribution of property or wealth from my deceased husband. I wouldn't consider those two examples as doing "the work of the virile virtues of men." - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found what Amelia Barr wrote very interesting. She’s not against discontented women in the working class fighting for better wages but rather against women in the political realm. I think she’s saying women are too fickle to make political decisions like decisions of war and that law would be in danger in the hands of women. Another point, I think she tried to make is that when a women steps out of the “domestic sphere” she put herself at risk for being criticized by a man (creating animosity) and Barr believed only women should criticize other women. - Marsha<br />
<br />
== Anna Garlin Spencer, 1898, response to anti-suffrage attacks ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 20th Century feminist, 1903, The Home ==<br />
<br />
In Charlotte Perkins Gilman's piece, the reader gets the idea that she obviously thinks there is more to women than being housewives and mothers. She argues that women should be able to participate in society and not be stuck at home. The idea of a "home-husband" was a funny concept. She said, and I agree, "Never was any such idiot on earth as this hypothetical home-husband. It was not in him to stay in such primitive restrictions. But he has been quite willing to leave his wife in that interestingly remote period." Men are so adamant about keeping females inside the home but having the roles be reversed would be out of the question. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T03:36:50Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
I cannot imagine working with wounded men some of them enemies. Ada says she is not sure that she can treat Yankee soldiers the same as Confederate soldiers. At first my reaction was what kind of person wouldn't help out a wounded man he deserves treatment like everyone else. Then I thought about it. That soldier you are helping could have killed your father or brother or son. I would like to think I would treat everyone the same but I am not sure I could. I think Ada is a good person for at least making the effort to help humanity despite the fact they are the enemy. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T03:21:26Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T03:20:18Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves <br />
who are taking advantage of having no white man in<br />
charge of them I still find her letter interesting. <br />
She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" <br />
are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave <br />
yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining <br />
and yell back. I know women would never do that but <br />
I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T03:19:12Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves who are taking advantage of having no white man in charge of them I still find her letter interesting. She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining and yell back. I know women would never do that but I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_13-14_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 13-14 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-23T03:18:33Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Louisa May Alcott, Hospital Sketches, 1862-1863 ==<br />
<br />
A Union Nurse, shows the experience of Louisa May Alcott as a nurse in the Union Hotel Hospital in Washington, D.C. One thing that stood out to me was Dorthea Dix’s call for women nurses. She was specific in that she was looking for “women between 30 and 50 years old, single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking.” At first I thought that the age of 30 was a little old to be a cut off considering there must have been so many single, sober, hard-working, moral, and plain looking girls that were between 20 and 30 that would not have families to worry about so they would have the ability to become nurses. But then I realized that perhaps the act of being a young woman and working in close proximity with men would be considered immoral in and of itself. I am curious if they sent any women away because they were too good looking! –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also thought it was really interesting that Dorthea Dix wanted women between the age of 30-50. I agree with Erin that women probably had to be atleast 30 because it would be seen as inappropriate for a younger women to be working with men. I think that Dix extended the age to 50 because there were probably a lot of widows in their 40's. I thought the requirement that the women be plain looking was funny, but I guess it makes sense. If the nurse was too good looking, the patients would probably be hitting on her all day long. On the other hand, if the patients had not been able to pay for prostitutes, they probably would be hitting on their nurses even if they were "plain looking". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Mary Livermore, [Northern women on farm during war], 1890 -- Woloch and Major Problems readings. ==<br />
I thought it was interesting that Mary Livermore's observation of the women working in the fields at first bothered her. Livermore compared women’s devotion to their family life and maintaining their farms to men’s devotion to the war when she said, “the women had enlisted in the war.” This gave women some gender equality and these responsibilities were accepted because it was in the name of family, home, and country. -Marsha <br />
<br />
I really liked the quote "the women had enlisted in the war". While most women were not in battle or even serving as nurses, the Civil War changed their lives. They had to take on completely new responsiblities. I wonder if the women knew how much their lives would be changed by the war. I think they were caught up in the glory of the war. I bet if they knew how much their life would change, or in the instance of southern women that the war would be in their backyard, they would not have pushed the men to fight. I don't think that they realized what they were getting themselves into at all. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
In Modern Problems, Mary Livermore spoke of the work of women. She set a strong and emotional tone that women set forth in the war. I think she was saying that the men in the war were given hope through the inspiring women and “ministering angels.” She also compares women’s “relief societies” to regiments in the war. -Marsha<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the end of Mary Livermore's selection when she is comparing harvesting and domestic chores. She explains that harvesting is not any harder than "typical" women's work and so females should be able/allowed to do it. She also wants men to know that women are serving the country in the fields doing the harvest in the same way men are in the war serving. The examples she gives help prove her statement that "women had enlisted for the war." I feel she is also trying to make the point that men's opinions about women working in the field does not matter because under the circumstances the women are the only ones able to do the work that is necessary in keeping up the estate or home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Louticia Jackson’s letter in 1863 ==<br />
Despite the fact Louticia is having a problem with slaves who are taking advantage of having no white man in charge of them I still find her letter interesting. She is clearly struggling with the fact that her "servants" are not helping her. I did not like how when Willes the slave yelled she took to her bed cause it "excited" her. Stop whining and yell back. I know women would never do that but I say desperate times call for desperate measures. LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
== Eva Jones to Mary Jones, her mother-in-law, 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Accounts of former slaves, 1865-1937 ==<br />
<br />
== VA woman, recorded by abolitionist Laura Haviland in 1866 ==<br />
<br />
== Harriet Tubman, from her white female biographer, Sarah Bradford, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Clara Burdett, to notary in Union camp in KY, March 1865 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Fanny Berry, in Weevils in the Wheat, 1937 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Tennessee Woman, 1929 [TN Nanny] ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Anderson, NC ==<br />
<br />
== Katie Darling, in TX ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah and Lucy Chase, Teaching the Freedmen, 1866-1868 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading Sarah Chase and Lucy Chase’s letters because I did a lot of research on the topic of white northern women going south to teach newly freed blacks for my second paper and I was able to draw parallels between the Chase sisters and Mary Ames (who I focused on for my paper). The Chase sisters were from a wealthy family Massachusetts, and had been against slavery since before the war began, and went to Savannah after the war ended as teachers. In the letters, I can tell that becoming teachers in the south was not just about teaching the basics of reading and writing but it was about teaching new ways of life. These teachers thought that it was their responsibility to show the newly freed blacks how to be religious, self-sufficient, and how to be good people (by their standards). I have no doubt that the teachers had the best intentions, but I wonder if these rich white women were setting unattainable expectations and standards on black families and what this meant for them. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought these letters really showed the complexity of life in the South after the Civil War. Sarah Chase stated that she could hardly see the possibility of the North and South united because the South had an “intensely bitter” feeling “against anything Northern.” White people of the South resented all that Northern educators were doing for freed blacks since many white Southerners were uneducated themselves. However, Southern white people would rather not attend school at all than go to desegregated schools. Sarah Chase is an excellent example of the common racist feelings among abolitionists. She stated that her purpose was not to make black people equal to white people; she wished that white people always have a higher social standing. Even those trying to help the freed slaves were racist! Given the completely pervasive racism, it is not hard for me to realize how difficult life would be for black people after the Civil War. I can see how the Civil War really required a later Civil Rights Movement. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Susie King Taylor, Reminiscences of My Life in Camp, 1902 ==<br />
<br />
== Ada Bacot, Confederate Nurse, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
== Maria Daly, 1862, Northerner in the South (New Orleans) ==<br />
<br />
== Sarah Morgan, 1863, Teen diary ==<br />
This diary entry reminded me of the Abigail Adams letters we read earlier in the course because I think both are severely out of context. The editors chose the most radical thing Abigail Adams and Sarah Morgan ever said and placed only those quotes in this book. I researched Sarah Morgan’s diary for the second paper in this class. I discovered that Sarah Morgan expressed support and desire for traditional gender roles of domestic female dependence much more often than her imaginations of fighting as a soldier. Later in the diary, she even renounced women expressing strong patriotic emotions. She said that her brothers’ political thought and action spoke for her. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Cornelia Hancock, Union Nurse, 1863 ==<br />
<br />
== Caroline Kirkland, 1863, defends Northern women’s support of Northern men ==<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to read about a women who was defending the involvement Northern women had during the Civil War. She seemed very passionate about explaining the good they were doing and how they were helping in a positive way. Caroline Kirkland believed in her view so much as to say that if Southern women acted more like Northern women, the war may not have taken place.I thought that was a bold statement. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas, January 1865 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T15:19:44Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
After reading all the different entries in the book, I've noticed that all the women who were involved in reform movements were 100% dedicated to their cause. There were very few who were semi-dedicated, or who only partially cared. These women were involved for a reason, and they weren't going to stop, no matter who or what tried to deter them. Their dedication is what kept the reform movement going. But '''the ironic thing is that while all these women were putting in so much effort into these movements, none of it was out of selfish motives (at least not what we can see).''' I think that is what made the reform movement as great as it was, women helping one another. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex. I also noticed this, and it really comes across in the section written by Julie Jeffrey when she writes about the diaries and letters left by women activists and the difficulties they endured. '''These women were risking a great deal both in their home lives and when they were taking such a public stand. They put an enormous amount of time and effort into the cause which left them, in some cases, exhausted and stressed. I agree with Jeffrey's assessment that "No matter what one's attitude might be toward women's rights, to embrace abolitionism was to embrace radicalism" (155).''' I also found it interesting that in '''almost all of the writings from the Woloch readings for this week, the women used both the Bible and the Constitution as proof/reason for their calls for equality.''' It seems like the church really let women down during this period because women activists were counting on their support and then were actually attacked by church ministers for their position or perhaps, their vocality.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I agree with you Nancy and Alex. These women were very unselfish. Even though there was less of a chance that they would be attacked for being abolitionists, it still could have happened. People hated abolitionists. To go against the crowd in this way shows strength and courage. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In The Advocate of Moral Reform I found it interesting that moral reformers were against “the hazard of elopement”. They believed that elopement was an escape from parental authority and “the first step to ruin”. In the story, the girl elopes and is led into prostitution, and is then saved. I am curious how often this type of thing actually happened. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was strange that when the girl was found in the brothel by the person from her home town, that he himself did not get her out of the place himself, instead he went to the "Moral Reform Society" and asked them to get her out.-Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the moral reformers brought the circus into the mix. I can definitely see how they’d take issue with it, but I think they may’ve been overreacting just a tad. The young man who knew the girl, “having heard of the performances of a wonderful animal at the Circus, was induced for once to visit that school of immorality and debauchery (234).” They actually suggest that going to the circus leads to the whorehouse. The young man apparently only went because of his exposure to those shady circus folk. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Ok to be fair to the story the circus is a scary place! You never know what kind of shady business is going on there! It did seem kind of odd though that they would throw in the circus aspect of the story. I guess the author had a bad experience with the circus? This piece was slightly amusing/pathetic it reminded me of the story of Charlotte (was that her name?) the other very very silly girl who ran off with someone and was abandoned and then died when her father came and forgave her. Why are these girls so silly? I hope we have evolved!-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
For the topic, I found this piece almost humorous. The writer seems to be putting forth a conspiracy theory that the man intentionally lured his very innocent victim into the state of needing to become a prostitute to pay for her bills. This article portrays a young country girl, innocent in the ways of the world, as a victim to the evils of both male immorality (sex) and the city. Exaggerated and a little over the top, I am sure it received plenty of attention, but also very pointedly displaying the evils of sex and prostitution.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree that this piece is kind of funny. It makes this girl sound so naive, like she had no idea what she was getting herself into. She may not have. However, I doubt that she was tricked into prostitution. Women may not have had a lot of rights but they were not stupid. It was kind of creepy that this was going on at a circus. I'm sure this story helped motivate people to be against prostitution. Well, at least the ladies. I'm sure most men didn't really care what prostitutes had to go through, since the prostitutes were doing business with them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
Maria Stewart seems out of her time. She is strong and vigile with her words. She recognizes her part in the constitution by saying that all men are free and equal. I think she makes a loud and vigilant statement when she says principles makes the man not the color of the skin. I thought it was interesting also when she wrote that even though many think blacks are an inferior race that God does not look at them that way. Maria Stewart had professed her faith to God. I think she was expressing that blacks allegiance was to their country and faith to God -not their masters. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
The writing of Maria W. Stewart reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr. She wrote: “Far be it from me to recommend to you either to kill, burn, or destroy. But I would strongly recommend to you to improve your talents; let not one lie buried in the earth. Show forth your powers of the mind...” Stewart and King both promoted non-violent protest and spoke of equality in religious terms. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
As I read this passage, Maria Stewart said many things that stood out to me as brave, but also showed her dedication to the cause. She reaches out to people with the intent to empower them. She says, "Many think, because your skins are tinged with a sable hue, that you are an inferior race of beings." (P. 236) To the people she specifically talks to, she gives them little chance for excuses as to why they do not stand up and support reform and stand up for their rights. It was interesting how Maria Stewart referred to God in everything she said. She believed her work was for God and believed, with that idea, that she (and other AFrican Americans) could achieve anything. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this passage. I thought that she was very intelligent, brave, and most of all--she was articulate. I thought it was very clever to bring up the fact that the blood and tears of the African Americans had really more so than even the Europeans, settled America and made it was it was. I also like how she mentioned that while African Americans were busy doing all the physical labor required to build up a nation, their masters had been busy with "head-work." It was an interesting way to describe that fact that some parts of society had had a 200 year head start on education, while others yearned just to learn how to read. -Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman's role in reform. It was women's Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery. Using such words as "scourged sisters" at the South, meaning black women are our sisters and are being tortured by the south. The south must be corrected for their wrong doings. Black women are being opressed and we must reform the south to stop the oppression. She saw it as a degradation of women or what she called "darkness." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree with Marsha in that women stressed their importance in reform. They saw it as their "Christian duty" to help their enslaved sisters. According to these antislavery women, they were justified in condemning slavery because it "robbed women in slavery of virtue". It is interesting that these antislavery women who had their ideals of what it meant to be women believed that slave women had those same ideals. I wonder how southern white women felt about this. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it is always so interesting when people interpret the bible and use it for whatever point they was to make or argue. In this case with the letter, I liked the way the lady wanted to explain how God viewed women-that they had a duty but also that they should not be slaves. I also liked the statement that said it "disregards the relation of husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child-shuts out the intellect the light of knowledge-whelms hope in despair and ruins the soul." The letter had a lot of good points to make. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
When I read this piece, I was really impressed by the ammount of imagery used. It was very well written, and made to grab the readers attention and convince them that slavery is indeed, a very vile practice. This is definately propaganda, catering to the northern white middle class women. It was made to be really moving and convincing, to draw more women into the cause of anti-slavery, and it seems like a good enough piece of work to have been able to do the job. Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
I was really impressed by the choice of words and imagery Grimke uses in her response to the Mass Clergy. Just to imagine how learned and politically savvy this woman must have been is not much of a feat. I can see this woman being someone who could run verbal circles around almost anyone. And, it is also interssting that she intreperts the bible as saying that men and women were created equal. I am curious to know if saying that men and women were created equal under god was a very different thing, or if that was a rather normal statement to make at the time? Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina about the way Sarah Grimke spoke to the clergy. She was not afraid to ask the hard questions, the ones she knew she was justified in asking, such s "how monstrous is the doctrine that woman is to be dependent on man? Where in all the sacred scriptures is this taught?" Grimke speaks out on eveyrthing she finds wrong with the clergy in relation to women's rights. I think I mostly enjoyed her last sentence, "But no where does Godsay that he made any disntinction between us as moral and intelligent beings." I feel like that was almost a slap in the face to the clergy, because in one sentence, she was able to assert female intelligence over that of men, and it came across as an insult. I was glad to see someone could be courageous and speak up, without being afraid. Grimke did her research, and had evidence to back up what she was arguing. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought it was pretty clever and creative use the clergy's own source of validation [the Bible] against them. By doing so, they could not counter-argue her claims, because if they claimed what she said was wrong, then they in fact would be going against the Bible. So it was smart for her to do that. It was also a good move how she conceded to the physical inferiority--because it almost sounded like a compromise. It showed her opposition that she was rational at the least, and could concede the obvious, which I think would help her plight in the long run. --Mary Turner<br />
<br />
Side note: I happen to come across some interesting info about the Grimke family. The father of the Grimke sisters, Henry Grimke, had fathered three African American children with his servent Nancy Weston. He later moved in with Nancy and helped raise her sons. One of which was Archibald Grimke--one of the founders of the NAACP. Apparently the Grimke sisters had helped their younger half brother get an education, which led him to follow in their footsteps as a civil rights activist. I thought it was really cool that their whole family, which was blended, all contributed to the civil rights cause. (Mary)<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
I don’t really understand why women would be willing to put forth their rights and equality unanimously except for voting rights. If women were kept out of political life because they were considered unsuited for it intellectually and emotionally, but the women and men at Seneca Falls were arguing the opposite, why not just go for the gold? The Declaration of Sentiments is threatening already, what difference would one more assertion make. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't really understand why the Declaration of Sentiments began with the introduction to the Declaration of Independence. I know the women were trying to establish that they were entitled to the freedoms men did as a result of the Declaration of Independence, but I feel like by repeating it, the women are not making any progress. However, I do feel that some of the statements made in the Declaration of Sentiments were very strong. When the women write, "He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead." (P. 242) The phrase "civilly dead" just seems like a strong way of describing the lack of rights for women, but that probably describes the women's feelings almost exactly on the matter. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
The marriage protest I compared to a modern day pre-nuptial agreement. With Lucy having this agreement read at her wedding she took a strong stance for women's rights as did her husband and those who attended the wedding. I think her fight against William Blackstone's words, "the existence of the wife is suspended during marriage." spoke louder than any sewing circle. Lucy wanted an equal partnership in her marriage and with this agreement believed she would get it, but I question how was the protest enforced? Did her husband truly agree to all six points in the protest? If so, I strongly commend him for standing by his wife in her fight for women's rights and hope he set a further example for marriages in the 1850s. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The introduction to this piece noted that Lucy Stone endured much ridicule and persecution for her protest, but it does not mention how others regarded Henry Blackwell, Lucy’s husband. I would think that those opposed to the protest would also ridicule Blackwell for his perceived inability to keep Lucy submissive to him. I think Blackwell’s actions were very brave and liberal-thinking because he gave society a large opportunity to question his masculinity. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
This protest was very interesting. That the husband would sign this very rebellious statement during a time when the man is viewed as the head of the household seemed very liberal of him. My question would be was how did this protest stand legally? Many of the portions of this protest include legal issues such as guardianship over children, laws over wills, property, and the rejection of feme covert. Did this really do anything outside of the house?-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
wow! This was really cool! I wonder if she was one of the first women to keep her own name when she got married. I also wonder if this agreement had any standing in a court of law, but regardless it was a very compelling act of rebellion against the legal system in regards to married womens rights. I know the story mentioned that Lucy received ridicule for her actions but I would find it hard to believe that her husband didn't receive that and much worse from other men. Both her and her husbands actions are extremely commendable and I hope that it inspired other women of that time to demand the same sort of rights in their own marriages.---Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I really liked this protest and the fact that both Lucy Stone and her husband signed it. Whether this had any legal standing, which I doubt, may not really have mattered. It was probably very effective in making others start to question the issues it raised. I also, would be interested in knowing what kind of ridicule Blackwell may have experienced because of this.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I loved this protest. I wonder what possessed the husband to sign the document. He is signing away all his power which most people like. He must be a very forward thinker. I really do not think this is effective because although she might be free to do what she wants society will reign her in. They will not accept her as a business partner they will refuse to deal with her in the public sphere. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much Isabella Graham invoked the idea that, as Christian women, it was both their moral and religious duty to fight against slavery, which they saw as a sin. She considers them "blessed", as well as "Good Samaritans". These religious sentiments are echoed in the next document, the minutes of the meeting of the Anti-Slavery Convention in 1837, which starts off with a reading of the Scripture and offering of prayer, and then goes on to state the necessity of "treading" in the "Redeemer's" steps and preserving "God's gift of freedom." I didn't realize how much of a role religion played in the Abolition movement, or perhaps how much it was expressed. I also thought it was interesting how Isabella Graham seemed to encourage the women in their "duties", portraying the widows as less fortunate and in need of assistance ("the approach of winter is as the approach of death.") -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison she invoked the image of the Christian woman. I think this is a clever idea because middle class women saw themselves as morally superior to men. I think it is interesting that she agrees that widow try hard to get money so they are not just asking for handouts. Thinks have changes since then. Many Americans consider welfare a handout and yet these people are doing it to improve the lives of others. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
Compared to what I learned about the Constitutional Conventions and early Congress in my Revolution class, a lot of things seemed to be accomplished in this convention. They had 8 revolutions passed in the first day, in fact, everything seemed to pass. However, this could simply be the fact that so many like-minded individuals chose to meet at this group whereas elected/appointed officials who may not share the same view were in the Constitutional Conventions or Congress, this leads to debate. Just wondering, about how long would these conventions last? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
Wow. I didn't think for a minute that this was going to be about masturbation. The writer associates a whole bizarre assortment of problems and causes with "Solitary Vice". As a cause, it sounds like she blames "rich and high seasoned food" and poor hygeine, and tragically, what sounds like some form of molestation. And it sounds like the ultimate effect is allegedly insanity. If the moral movements against prostitution and alcohol had concerns in overall social health, particularly for women, I wonder how masturbation would have been perceived to have been a detriment to society. Also, though, what an awkward thing to write. - erin b.<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==<br />
<br />
While this passage consisted of only a paragraph, I found it interesting how Mrs. Hale took a stance on voting. She did not think women needed the right to vote when they could influence the men in their lives, yet did the men not have the final say so in the home? I think this passage took a step backwards for the women's movement, while yes women could attempt to influence men did they really? This was not like the Native Americans in which women could keep food from men if things did not go their way. I think this passage serves to represent women as subservient to their husbands and or sons. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting that Mrs. Hale did not think that women needed the right to vote. I'm sure some women did have profound influence over their husbands, especially in those in companionate marriages. However, I have trouble believing that a husband would vote a certain way just because the little woman at home says so. I agree with Megan that this seems like a step backward. After reading passages by women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, its strange to read a piece like this. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Do you think this passage is related to any of the reform movements, such as prohibition or prostitution? Perhaps many women at the time felt that if they focused to much on women's suffrage, the issues that were important to them would be left behind. Do you think that some women believed in women's suffrage, but did not think it was worth fighting for because it would hinder other important issues? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
I still find it kind of odd that a woman would write something such as this. I suppose it is because we have grown up in a time where we can vote. Although she does have a point that the woman can have an effect as a mother on how her children would vote. This comes back to the idea that it’s the woman’s job to raise good citizens. Like Megan W. I feel like it is very unlikely that she would have much effect on her husband’s vote. –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to ''The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement'', 1998. ==<br />
<br />
I liked this essay by Julie Roy Jeffrey. I liked how she talked about the plain, average woman being a big part of the abolition movement. William Lloyd Garrison Jr said that the "leaders would have been powerless" without their help. Jeffrey talks about individual movements that were created after the national antislavery effort was ended in the mid Nineteenth century. She also mentioned how the involvement in this effort put women outside their sphere like we talked about in class. The end of the essay mentions several women who were a part of this movement that I think was important to include. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I also really liked this essay. One part that especially interests me is when Julie Roy Jeffrey discussed the ways in which the abolitionist movement affected women's "self-perception and self-image". She talks about how the movement instilled in women the necessity of learning to "reason and to argue", which completely goes against society's expectation that women be submissive and passive. I also feel like in many ways the movement, along with other reform and moral movements of the period, may have given some women greater confidence in themselves and their abilities, as well as more assurance and self-assertiveness. On the other hand, some women could have felt as Sarah Ernst did, when she stated that the "sleepless nights and anxious distressed days" she was spending in commitments to the abolitionist movement were "not calculated to give a healthy constitution" to her newborn baby. I wonder how women such as Sarah balanced their roles as mothers and wives with their duties and commitments to the various movements? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in ''Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860'', (1992). ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T15:13:39Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative source questions ==<br />
After reading all the different entries in the book, I've noticed that all the women who were involved in reform movements were 100% dedicated to their cause. There were very few who were semi-dedicated, or who only partially cared. These women were involved for a reason, and they weren't going to stop, no matter who or what tried to deter them. Their dedication is what kept the reform movement going. But '''the ironic thing is that while all these women were putting in so much effort into these movements, none of it was out of selfish motives (at least not what we can see).''' I think that is what made the reform movement as great as it was, women helping one another. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex. I also noticed this, and it really comes across in the section written by Julie Jeffrey when she writes about the diaries and letters left by women activists and the difficulties they endured. '''These women were risking a great deal both in their home lives and when they were taking such a public stand. They put an enormous amount of time and effort into the cause which left them, in some cases, exhausted and stressed. I agree with Jeffrey's assessment that "No matter what one's attitude might be toward women's rights, to embrace abolitionism was to embrace radicalism" (155).''' I also found it interesting that in '''almost all of the writings from the Woloch readings for this week, the women used both the Bible and the Constitution as proof/reason for their calls for equality.''' It seems like the church really let women down during this period because women activists were counting on their support and then were actually attacked by church ministers for their position or perhaps, their vocality.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I agree with you Nancy and Alex. These women were very unselfish. Even though there was less of a chance that they would be attacked for being abolitionists, it still could have happened. People hated abolitionists. To go against the crowd in this way shows strength and courage. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== The Advocate of Moral Reform, 1838 ==<br />
<br />
In The Advocate of Moral Reform I found it interesting that moral reformers were against “the hazard of elopement”. They believed that elopement was an escape from parental authority and “the first step to ruin”. In the story, the girl elopes and is led into prostitution, and is then saved. I am curious how often this type of thing actually happened. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I thought it was strange that when the girl was found in the brothel by the person from her home town, that he himself did not get her out of the place himself, instead he went to the "Moral Reform Society" and asked them to get her out.-Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the moral reformers brought the circus into the mix. I can definitely see how they’d take issue with it, but I think they may’ve been overreacting just a tad. The young man who knew the girl, “having heard of the performances of a wonderful animal at the Circus, was induced for once to visit that school of immorality and debauchery (234).” They actually suggest that going to the circus leads to the whorehouse. The young man apparently only went because of his exposure to those shady circus folk. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Ok to be fair to the story the circus is a scary place! You never know what kind of shady business is going on there! It did seem kind of odd though that they would throw in the circus aspect of the story. I guess the author had a bad experience with the circus? This piece was slightly amusing/pathetic it reminded me of the story of Charlotte (was that her name?) the other very very silly girl who ran off with someone and was abandoned and then died when her father came and forgave her. Why are these girls so silly? I hope we have evolved!-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
For the topic, I found this piece almost humorous. The writer seems to be putting forth a conspiracy theory that the man intentionally lured his very innocent victim into the state of needing to become a prostitute to pay for her bills. This article portrays a young country girl, innocent in the ways of the world, as a victim to the evils of both male immorality (sex) and the city. Exaggerated and a little over the top, I am sure it received plenty of attention, but also very pointedly displaying the evils of sex and prostitution.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree that this piece is kind of funny. It makes this girl sound so naive, like she had no idea what she was getting herself into. She may not have. However, I doubt that she was tricked into prostitution. Women may not have had a lot of rights but they were not stupid. It was kind of creepy that this was going on at a circus. I'm sure this story helped motivate people to be against prostitution. Well, at least the ladies. I'm sure most men didn't really care what prostitutes had to go through, since the prostitutes were doing business with them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. ==<br />
Maria Stewart seems out of her time. She is strong and vigile with her words. She recognizes her part in the constitution by saying that all men are free and equal. I think she makes a loud and vigilant statement when she says principles makes the man not the color of the skin. I thought it was interesting also when she wrote that even though many think blacks are an inferior race that God does not look at them that way. Maria Stewart had professed her faith to God. I think she was expressing that blacks allegiance was to their country and faith to God -not their masters. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
The writing of Maria W. Stewart reminded me of Martin Luther King Jr. She wrote: “Far be it from me to recommend to you either to kill, burn, or destroy. But I would strongly recommend to you to improve your talents; let not one lie buried in the earth. Show forth your powers of the mind...” Stewart and King both promoted non-violent protest and spoke of equality in religious terms. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
As I read this passage, Maria Stewart said many things that stood out to me as brave, but also showed her dedication to the cause. She reaches out to people with the intent to empower them. She says, "Many think, because your skins are tinged with a sable hue, that you are an inferior race of beings." (P. 236) To the people she specifically talks to, she gives them little chance for excuses as to why they do not stand up and support reform and stand up for their rights. It was interesting how Maria Stewart referred to God in everything she said. She believed her work was for God and believed, with that idea, that she (and other AFrican Americans) could achieve anything. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this passage. I thought that she was very intelligent, brave, and most of all--she was articulate. I thought it was very clever to bring up the fact that the blood and tears of the African Americans had really more so than even the Europeans, settled America and made it was it was. I also like how she mentioned that while African Americans were busy doing all the physical labor required to build up a nation, their masters had been busy with "head-work." It was an interesting way to describe that fact that some parts of society had had a 200 year head start on education, while others yearned just to learn how to read. -Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Letter to Liberator from Andover Female Antislavery Society, 1836 ==<br />
Referring to the meetings of the Female Antislavery Society, this woman was stressing the importance of a woman's role in reform. It was women's Godly duty to reform those in the south, who believed in slavery. Using such words as "scourged sisters" at the South, meaning black women are our sisters and are being tortured by the south. The south must be corrected for their wrong doings. Black women are being opressed and we must reform the south to stop the oppression. She saw it as a degradation of women or what she called "darkness." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree with Marsha in that women stressed their importance in reform. They saw it as their "Christian duty" to help their enslaved sisters. According to these antislavery women, they were justified in condemning slavery because it "robbed women in slavery of virtue". It is interesting that these antislavery women who had their ideals of what it meant to be women believed that slave women had those same ideals. I wonder how southern white women felt about this. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I think it is always so interesting when people interpret the bible and use it for whatever point they was to make or argue. In this case with the letter, I liked the way the lady wanted to explain how God viewed women-that they had a duty but also that they should not be slaves. I also liked the statement that said it "disregards the relation of husband and wife, brother and sister, parent and child-shuts out the intellect the light of knowledge-whelms hope in despair and ruins the soul." The letter had a lot of good points to make. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
When I read this piece, I was really impressed by the ammount of imagery used. It was very well written, and made to grab the readers attention and convince them that slavery is indeed, a very vile practice. This is definately propaganda, catering to the northern white middle class women. It was made to be really moving and convincing, to draw more women into the cause of anti-slavery, and it seems like a good enough piece of work to have been able to do the job. Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 ==<br />
I was really impressed by the choice of words and imagery Grimke uses in her response to the Mass Clergy. Just to imagine how learned and politically savvy this woman must have been is not much of a feat. I can see this woman being someone who could run verbal circles around almost anyone. And, it is also interssting that she intreperts the bible as saying that men and women were created equal. I am curious to know if saying that men and women were created equal under god was a very different thing, or if that was a rather normal statement to make at the time? Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina about the way Sarah Grimke spoke to the clergy. She was not afraid to ask the hard questions, the ones she knew she was justified in asking, such s "how monstrous is the doctrine that woman is to be dependent on man? Where in all the sacred scriptures is this taught?" Grimke speaks out on eveyrthing she finds wrong with the clergy in relation to women's rights. I think I mostly enjoyed her last sentence, "But no where does Godsay that he made any disntinction between us as moral and intelligent beings." I feel like that was almost a slap in the face to the clergy, because in one sentence, she was able to assert female intelligence over that of men, and it came across as an insult. I was glad to see someone could be courageous and speak up, without being afraid. Grimke did her research, and had evidence to back up what she was arguing. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
<br />
I also thought it was pretty clever and creative use the clergy's own source of validation [the Bible] against them. By doing so, they could not counter-argue her claims, because if they claimed what she said was wrong, then they in fact would be going against the Bible. So it was smart for her to do that. It was also a good move how she conceded to the physical inferiority--because it almost sounded like a compromise. It showed her opposition that she was rational at the least, and could concede the obvious, which I think would help her plight in the long run. --Mary Turner<br />
<br />
Side note: I happen to come across some interesting info about the Grimke family. The father of the Grimke sisters, Henry Grimke, had fathered three African American children with his servent Nancy Weston. He later moved in with Nancy and helped raise her sons. One of which was Archibald Grimke--one of the founders of the NAACP. Apparently the Grimke sisters had helped their younger half brother get an education, which led him to follow in their footsteps as a civil rights activist. I thought it was really cool that their whole family, which was blended, all contributed to the civil rights cause. (Mary)<br />
<br />
== Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls, 1848 (written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton) ==<br />
<br />
I don’t really understand why women would be willing to put forth their rights and equality unanimously except for voting rights. If women were kept out of political life because they were considered unsuited for it intellectually and emotionally, but the women and men at Seneca Falls were arguing the opposite, why not just go for the gold? The Declaration of Sentiments is threatening already, what difference would one more assertion make. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't really understand why the Declaration of Sentiments began with the introduction to the Declaration of Independence. I know the women were trying to establish that they were entitled to the freedoms men did as a result of the Declaration of Independence, but I feel like by repeating it, the women are not making any progress. However, I do feel that some of the statements made in the Declaration of Sentiments were very strong. When the women write, "He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead." (P. 242) The phrase "civilly dead" just seems like a strong way of describing the lack of rights for women, but that probably describes the women's feelings almost exactly on the matter. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Lucy Stone (and Henry Blackwell)’s Marriage Protest, 1855 ==<br />
The marriage protest I compared to a modern day pre-nuptial agreement. With Lucy having this agreement read at her wedding she took a strong stance for women's rights as did her husband and those who attended the wedding. I think her fight against William Blackstone's words, "the existence of the wife is suspended during marriage." spoke louder than any sewing circle. Lucy wanted an equal partnership in her marriage and with this agreement believed she would get it, but I question how was the protest enforced? Did her husband truly agree to all six points in the protest? If so, I strongly commend him for standing by his wife in her fight for women's rights and hope he set a further example for marriages in the 1850s. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The introduction to this piece noted that Lucy Stone endured much ridicule and persecution for her protest, but it does not mention how others regarded Henry Blackwell, Lucy’s husband. I would think that those opposed to the protest would also ridicule Blackwell for his perceived inability to keep Lucy submissive to him. I think Blackwell’s actions were very brave and liberal-thinking because he gave society a large opportunity to question his masculinity. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
This protest was very interesting. That the husband would sign this very rebellious statement during a time when the man is viewed as the head of the household seemed very liberal of him. My question would be was how did this protest stand legally? Many of the portions of this protest include legal issues such as guardianship over children, laws over wills, property, and the rejection of feme covert. Did this really do anything outside of the house?-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
wow! This was really cool! I wonder if she was one of the first women to keep her own name when she got married. I also wonder if this agreement had any standing in a court of law, but regardless it was a very compelling act of rebellion against the legal system in regards to married womens rights. I know the story mentioned that Lucy received ridicule for her actions but I would find it hard to believe that her husband didn't receive that and much worse from other men. Both her and her husbands actions are extremely commendable and I hope that it inspired other women of that time to demand the same sort of rights in their own marriages.---Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I really liked this protest and the fact that both Lucy Stone and her husband signed it. Whether this had any legal standing, which I doubt, may not really have mattered. It was probably very effective in making others start to question the issues it raised. I also, would be interested in knowing what kind of ridicule Blackwell may have experienced because of this.--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== Sojourner Truth (Isabella Van Wagener), 1851 (Ohio Convention). ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Isablle Graham and Society for Relief of Poor Widows, 1806 ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how much Isabella Graham invoked the idea that, as Christian women, it was both their moral and religious duty to fight against slavery, which they saw as a sin. She considers them "blessed", as well as "Good Samaritans". These religious sentiments are echoed in the next document, the minutes of the meeting of the Anti-Slavery Convention in 1837, which starts off with a reading of the Scripture and offering of prayer, and then goes on to state the necessity of "treading" in the "Redeemer's" steps and preserving "God's gift of freedom." I didn't realize how much of a role religion played in the Abolition movement, or perhaps how much it was expressed. I also thought it was interesting how Isabella Graham seemed to encourage the women in their "duties", portraying the widows as less fortunate and in need of assistance ("the approach of winter is as the approach of death.") -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison she invoked the image of the Christian woman. I think this is a clever idea because middle class women saw themselves as morally superior to men. I think it is interesting that she agrees that widow try hard to get money so they are not just asking for handouts. Thinks have changes since then. Many Americans consider welfare a handout and yet these people are doing it to improve the lives of others. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women, 1837 ==<br />
Compared to what I learned about the Constitutional Conventions and early Congress in my Revolution class, a lot of things seemed to be accomplished in this convention. They had 8 revolutions passed in the first day, in fact, everything seemed to pass. However, this could simply be the fact that so many like-minded individuals chose to meet at this group whereas elected/appointed officials who may not share the same view were in the Constitutional Conventions or Congress, this leads to debate. Just wondering, about how long would these conventions last? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== American Female Reform Society Warns Mothers of “Solitary Vice”, 1839 ==<br />
Wow. I didn't think for a minute that this was going to be about masturbation. The writer associates a whole bizarre assortment of problems and causes with "Solitary Vice". As a cause, it sounds like she blames "rich and high seasoned food" and poor hygeine, and tragically, what sounds like some form of molestation. And it sounds like the ultimate effect is allegedly insanity. If the moral movements against prostitution and alcohol had concerns in overall social health, particularly for women, I wonder how masturbation would have been perceived to have been a detriment to society. Also, though, what an awkward thing to write. - erin b.<br />
<br />
== 1848, Elizabeth McClintock and Elizabeth Cady Stanton defend the Declaration of Sentiments and the 1848 convention ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1852, Sarah Josepha Hale, editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book ==<br />
<br />
While this passage consisted of only a paragraph, I found it interesting how Mrs. Hale took a stance on voting. She did not think women needed the right to vote when they could influence the men in their lives, yet did the men not have the final say so in the home? I think this passage took a step backwards for the women's movement, while yes women could attempt to influence men did they really? This was not like the Native Americans in which women could keep food from men if things did not go their way. I think this passage serves to represent women as subservient to their husbands and or sons. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also found in interesting that Mrs. Hale did not think that women needed the right to vote. I'm sure some women did have profound influence over their husbands, especially in those in companionate marriages. However, I have trouble believing that a husband would vote a certain way just because the little woman at home says so. I agree with Megan that this seems like a step backward. After reading passages by women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, its strange to read a piece like this. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Do you think this passage is related to any of the reform movements, such as prohibition or prostitution? Perhaps many women at the time felt that if they focused to much on women's suffrage, the issues that were important to them would be left behind. Do you think that some women believed in women's suffrage, but did not think it was worth fighting for because it would hinder other important issues? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
I still find it kind of odd that a woman would write something such as this. I suppose it is because we have grown up in a time where we can vote. Although she does have a point that the woman can have an effect as a mother on how her children would vote. This comes back to the idea that it’s the woman’s job to raise good citizens. Like Megan W. I feel like it is very unlikely that she would have much effect on her husband’s vote. –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
== Julie Roy Jeffrey, “Ordinary Women in the Antislavery Movement,” in the Introduction to ''The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism: Ordinary Women in the Anti-slavery Movement'', 1998. ==<br />
<br />
I liked this essay by Julie Roy Jeffrey. I liked how she talked about the plain, average woman being a big part of the abolition movement. William Lloyd Garrison Jr said that the "leaders would have been powerless" without their help. Jeffrey talks about individual movements that were created after the national antislavery effort was ended in the mid Nineteenth century. She also mentioned how the involvement in this effort put women outside their sphere like we talked about in class. The end of the essay mentions several women who were a part of this movement that I think was important to include. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I also really liked this essay. One part that especially interests me is when Julie Roy Jeffrey discussed the ways in which the abolitionist movement affected women's "self-perception and self-image". She talks about how the movement instilled in women the necessity of learning to "reason and to argue", which completely goes against society's expectation that women be submissive and passive. I also feel like in many ways the movement, along with other reform and moral movements of the period, may have given some women greater confidence in themselves and their abilities, as well as more assurance and self-assertiveness. On the other hand, some women could have felt as Sarah Ernst did, when she stated that the "sleepless nights and anxious distressed days" she was spending in commitments to the abolitionist movement were "not calculated to give a healthy constitution" to her newborn baby. I wonder how women such as Sarah balanced their roles as mothers and wives with their duties and commitments to the various movements? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Nancy Isenberg’s “Women’s Rights and the Politics of Church and State in Antebellum America,” (1998) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Shirley Yee, “Free Black Women in the Abolitionist Movement,” in ''Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860'', (1992). ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-06T20:12:29Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree that Bessy did embrace the myth of so much opportunity in America. I wonder how much of this was because she was a character in Mary Anne Sadlier's story. Do you think the all immigrants worked hard and expected the same of those around them? How many actually returned home after making money? I find it hard to imagine going to a new country and making money, then going back to poverty and starvation. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I agree with Emma about liking the tone of the piece. Most tales or accounts of people immigrating to the United States around this time usually are filled with bad tales, deaths, sicknesses etc. It was interesting to point out the fact though that maybe she was not being 100% truthful about it to ease her family's worry. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that the tone of these letters were a nice change of pace. However, I also find it hard to believe that immigration was full of happiness and sunshine. Especially since every other story that I have heard was a lot more negative. I think that the immigrants that wrote these letters were lying to try to keep their families from worrying about them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I also would have liked to read a personal story about one of these chinese prostitutes. While reading this article as well as the other similar ones dealing with prostitution in the west as well as in New York I found myself wondering about the women who become pregnant. I know they have a specific clause for that in the Chinese Prostitution bill...but would they have the child and continue to raise it? I found myself wondering what the outcome would be for the prostitutes who became pregnant and for their child. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
What was going on in China that made these women come to America to become prostitutes? I agree with Amy I don't think selling my body would be worth it. And getting freedom while sounds like a good plan is not really. What would they do once they were free. They had no skills for working outside of prostitution so how would them live? Where would they go? - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with you Kristina that I liked the fact that someone stood up to white men especially soldiers. I wonder the reasons why someone would be a "pretend Lieutenant" if he really was one. Maybe for cases such as this? Knowing that they could do basically whatever they want as a soldier and not get away with it? -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that it was interesting that an American was defending Native American women that were being raped by American soldiers. It would have been easy to just look the other way. I think it's sad that we hear so many stories of soldiers raping civilians. British soldiers did it during the Revolution. American soldiers raped Native Americans. I just think its incredibly wrong for soldiers to treat civilians, even "enemy" civilians, that way. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina, Amy, and Katelyn it is interesting that a white citizen is standing up for Indian women. Most white people thought Indians were inferior to them and it is nice to see that someone does care about them. I think the author used the term "pretend Lieut" because they did not want to think people in the Army could be as cruel as any criminal. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-06T20:07:02Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
It was very obvious that Bessy loved Ireland. I also wonder how many Irish immigrants that wanted to return home one day actually did. The trip to America had to be an extremely long trip. For her to come to America, work hard in difficult circumstances, and then make the trip back to Ireland took a lot of strength and courage. I just wonder how often situations like this actually happened. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I agree that Bessy did embrace the myth of so much opportunity in America. I wonder how much of this was because she was a character in Mary Anne Sadlier's story. Do you think the all immigrants worked hard and expected the same of those around them? How many actually returned home after making money? I find it hard to imagine going to a new country and making money, then going back to poverty and starvation. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
I enjoyed this piece, it provided a lot of information about immigrants (though certainly not the majority of the poor Irish who suffered an awful journey across the Atlantic.) Jannicke Saehle obviously has some money as she was able to site see once arriving in America. I found her statement about sea sickness, “And after five minutes my turn came, also, to contribute my share to the Atlantic Ocean,” quite humorous. <br />
I also found it interesting her mentioning the abundance of food in America and that Americans tended to toss the extra to swine while people in her homeland starved. I certainly hope Johannes, her brother to whom she was writing, was not one of the starving people for I would hate to hear of all the waste if I were to be one of the starving poor. <br />
One question, though, how common were the museums that she described with wild animals? –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I didn't realize that museuems of the kind she was describing existed at this time period in New York...I wonder if she was mentioning the Museum of Natural History. I have been there but who is the soldier with no head? I don't remember seeing that last time I went to any history museums. Her story was nice to read, because unlike so many others she truly seems to be living a better life in America. Even her passage over seemed to be blessed with good fortune. the tone of Jannickes story was happy and upbeat making her seem like the type of person who would find the silver lining in ever episode. However I wonder if she was trying to play things up a bit to comfort her family that maybe was worried about her well being?--Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I agree with Emma about liking the tone of the piece. Most tales or accounts of people immigrating to the United States around this time usually are filled with bad tales, deaths, sicknesses etc. It was interesting to point out the fact though that maybe she was not being 100% truthful about it to ease her family's worry. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that the tone of these letters were a nice change of pace. However, I also find it hard to believe that immigration was full of happiness and sunshine. Especially since every other story that I have heard was a lot more negative. I think that the immigrants that wrote these letters were lying to try to keep their families from worrying about them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree that it is very interesting that Sanger blamed husbands, fathers, and the environment for these women becoming prostitutes. I think that a lot of that comes from the fact that women were expected to be so "pure" and "chaste". Obviously, they really weren't so pure and chaste. I mean I definitely don't think a woman would become a prostitute just because she likes sex. The women that Sanger studied were young, poor immigrants. They needed to make money and there were not many job opportunities for them. I think there's more to it than just that their husbands and fathers failed them. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that a fair number of women seemed to choose “inclination” as the reason they were prostitutes, which basically means they just liked sex. I personally have a hard time understanding why anyone (even people who really like sex) would choose to be a prostitute unless they had no other means to support themselves. So, how many of these women were actually telling the truth? Were they perhaps to proud to admit that they were prostitutes because they were unable to support themselves another way? Wouldn’t it be worse for them to imply that they were lusty and passionate when it was understood that women were uninterested in sex rather than that they were just simply poor and needy? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
To me Dr. Sanger was reinforcing the notion that women were more primative and needy of men, given that many said that they were in the profession to satisfy their own desires and that the powerful impact that men had on their becoming prostitutes. Although it is interesting to see the doctor blaming some of the issue on men. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
I also have a problem with the category of inclination. Every one of those examples listed stated that these women became prostitutes due to need for income rather than need for sex. It seems very much like a stretch to me that those women would become a prostitutes in order to “gratify the sexual passions”, and am more inclined to believe in the analysis of inclination for an “easy life” which suggests need for income and goods. Sanger himself did not believe this though he refused it because he was of the notion that white women did not want sex, and that he often blamed the men who should be responsible. He was definitely a man of his time. It was however interesting as it looked into other jobs women did besides keeping house and trying to stay virtuous.-- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
This article was interesting especially the survey at the beginning listing examples as to why these women became prostitutes. One of the answers that had me questioning was “Too ill to work.” These women would be too ill to work but felt fine enough to have sex for money. Dr. Sangers’ analysis was fascinating as well, he was trying to work out why the women would turn to prostitution. He did not seem to believe the answer of “inclination” as the intro to the article states he saw women as passionless. It seems in many of these historical documents men either saw women as passionless perhaps virtuous or they saw them too passionate and needed to be married in order to keep them in their place. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This might be naive of me but I noticed a lot of the women who became prostitutes said it was because they were seduced and abandoned by lovers, now that is very unfortunate and all but is it necessary to go into prostitution afterwards? I know that losing ones virginity would "ruin" an unmarried girl but why are these girls telling everyone that they were ruined? Maybe these girls were not being discreet about their "torrid" affairs but I feel like it could have been beneficial for them to lie about them! Obviously in cases where they ended up pregnant this would not be possible but there must have been some cases where they could have gone home and no one would be the wiser! -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading this entry, I wondered if all the terms and conditions these girls had to abide by just for passage to America was really worth the risk. If a girl became sick, she had to work longer; or if she became pregnant, the deal was off and she was sent back to China. I feel like sickness and pregnancy were pretty frequent, and to me, its any wonder that these girls actually put themselves through it. It is understandable though, that they only were prostitutes to pay for their passage and afterwards may lead a normal life, but it just seems like such a traumatic thing to go through. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
The language used in the contract made it sound like the customer was renting a car, rather than dealing with a human being: “if a customer asks to take her out” and “she shall be returned within 100 days (239)” come to mind. I’m curious who wrote up the contracts and ran the brothels? Were they whites or other Chinese? Whites hardly considered the Chinese to be human, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if they considered it like renting out property, but you’d hope the Chinese would have slightly more respect for their own people. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I also thought this contract (and the others like it) was very interesting. I would however, have liked to have known the after stories to go with these contracts. The time at first (four and one half years) seems very small, however like Alex stated, I would think sickness and pregnancy would accumulate a lot of extra time for these ladies. I would like to have known the actual amount of time they had to work, whether they received their freedom, or whether they lived to see the end. Were they in the habit of using birth control? How effective was it? These contracts would be very interesting to see in a much larger context to see how the women fared at the end of them. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I also would have liked to read a personal story about one of these chinese prostitutes. While reading this article as well as the other similar ones dealing with prostitution in the west as well as in New York I found myself wondering about the women who become pregnant. I know they have a specific clause for that in the Chinese Prostitution bill...but would they have the child and continue to raise it? I found myself wondering what the outcome would be for the prostitutes who became pregnant and for their child. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
It does seem strange to have a contract for prostitution - but if prostitution was going on in their homeland, it would only seem strange to us. Would the women that were prostituted out see this as an opportunity for them, considering they were told they would eventually have freedom? (even though they were lied to and never given their freedom) Another point, it would seem as a no end situation if they got a disease because I would think their chances of getting a disease are so much higher with multiple partners. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); was pregnancy common with concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
What was going on in China that made these women come to America to become prostitutes? I agree with Amy I don't think selling my body would be worth it. And getting freedom while sounds like a good plan is not really. What would they do once they were free. They had no skills for working outside of prostitution so how would them live? Where would they go? - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
The wording of these contracts sounded to me more like slavery than several years of servitude. “Yet Kum consents to prostitute her body to receive company…”; “Ah Ho distinctly agrees to give her body to Mr. Yee for services as a prostitute…”; “She makes her body over to the woman Sep Sam, to serve as a prostitute…”. Each of these contracts emphasizes the fact that the Chinese women no longer owned or controlled their own bodies. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I agree that these contracts seem more like slavery that several years of servitude. I also wonder how often these women became pregnant. What about STDs? I doubt that the "owners" of these women were practicing safe sex. Were disease and pregnancy a big problem for prostitutes at this time? - Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I found it comical that Susan Shelby Magoffin thought she needed to "be more expert in ... Spanish" (p. 236) so that she could get advice about men. It is not surprising that she would make the effort to interact with other cultures given her interactions with American women were probably limited. For example, she will be the "only traderess" (p. 235) at the American-thrown Spanish ball. - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
I thought that this was a very interesting piece. I was very happy that a citizen would protest the rape of Native Americans even if the ones committing the crime were officers in the US army. I did find it particularly interesting though that the person refers to one officer as possibly being a "pretend Lieut." I would be curious to know if impersonating soldiers was at all typical if the men could get away with it,(or at least think they could get away with it).-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with you Kristina that I liked the fact that someone stood up to white men especially soldiers. I wonder the reasons why someone would be a "pretend Lieutenant" if he really was one. Maybe for cases such as this? Knowing that they could do basically whatever they want as a soldier and not get away with it? -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I agree that it was interesting that an American was defending Native American women that were being raped by American soldiers. It would have been easy to just look the other way. I think it's sad that we hear so many stories of soldiers raping civilians. British soldiers did it during the Revolution. American soldiers raped Native Americans. I just think its incredibly wrong for soldiers to treat civilians, even "enemy" civilians, that way. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
With reference to Allison's comment about Zitkala-Sa's mother feeling like a foreigner in her own home, I can only imagine that when Zitkala-Sa returns to her mother, that feeling will strengthen. The assimilation process at these white-run schools were designed to reinvent the children and discouraged any practice of native traditions that might be waiting for her upon her return to her mother. One time I saw pictures of students when they first arrived to a school and after they were "westernized". The differences with astonishing- I bet when Dawee came back to visit, his mother didn't even recognize him! Additionally, the pictures only portrayed physical changes (i.e. a haircut), but I bet these were negligible compared to the spiritual changes of religious conversion. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison, this was a very sad piece, both for the mother and Zitkala-Sa. It was interesting that the mother did not trust the missionaries and stated that they lie, yet she finally decides to let her eight year old child go with them. I also found it interesting that her mother makes the housing changes after Dawee comes back from being "educated." So the influence of the education is indeed working through the children in the efforts to change the way that the Native Americans lived. The fact that even Dawee, having been through the education experience provided by the missionaries, does not think Zitkala-Sa should go makes me wonder why the mother and even Zitkala-Sa did not listen to him. At the end, when Zitkala-Sa gets to the school, her description of how frightened she was was very sad. The men who came to Zitkala-Sa's village are referred to as missionaries. At this point, how large of a role did religious organizations play in taking Native American children to schools for the purpose of assimilation? Or was it a combined religious and educational purpose? Also, what kind of education they received at these schools would be interesting to know? -Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
Reading this piece, I felt very sad for both the mother and the daughter. It must have been such a difficult decision for Zitkala-Sa's mother to make. On one, hand, she already lost three years out of her sons life, and I'm sure he came home as a very different person from what he was like when he left, but on the other hand, the educational opportunities for Zitkala-Sa must have been hard to ignore. I thought the aunt's foresight on the issue was interesting, when she commented that as Zitkala-Sa grew up there would be fewer and fewer real Dakota and more white men. That recognition of the slow decline of her culture just struck me as very sad, and it made me wonder if that was a common viewpoint among the adults of the tribe. Finally, It was interesting to see how the missionaries tempted Zitkala-Sa into going with them, and how little enticement was actually needed before she was willing to go to the missionary school. ~Melissa Patterson<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
Mrs. Greene's writing about the life in Colorado was very interesting. She was willing to do anything for her husband, even if it meant sacrificing her own comfort and happiness. She clearly hated where they had moved to, and missed her family greatly. It would seem that she would have picked up and moved if given the chance. But the funny thing is, when she is given the chance by her husband, she refuses and says "Go without you, no, never." (P. 242) I feel as though Mrs. Greene focused on the landscape and other tangible things, instead of looking at the glass half full and realizing she was safe, with her family, etc. But it was probably extrremely hard to leave your home land and move cross country, enduring a rough journey, only to find a place where there was nothing but desert and where you were isolated from everything and everyone. That was probably the hardest part for her. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T01:48:29Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness <br />
<br />
I do not think that all of those women choose to go into prostitution for sexual gratification. There was such a taboo against women who sold themselves that none of those women would do it if not for necessity. The women were probably lying. I felt awful that they had to resort to this to support their family. I am surprised that there were so many that said their family turned them out. I cannot imagine getting thrown out of my house. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); were pregnancies common within concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_11_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 11 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-05T01:39:25Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Mary Anne Sadlier's Bessy Conway ==<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that Bessy, upon leaving Ireland to come to America, said that she was planning on returning to her family in a few years. Was it common for men and women who left Ireland to plan on returning one day? Also, I thought it was cool that Bessy was able to return home and help her family, it seems very ideal, like this is what the typical Irish immigrant woman would strive to do, leave home on her own (getting her burden off her family) and making enough money to turn around and help support her family. So what was Mary Anne Sadlier's goal in writing this story? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think that Bessy Conway was one of the lucky ones because she was able to go and had a job lined up for her with a place to live. She was one of those who embraced the myth of so much opportunity in a new world. She was a hard worker and expected the same of others around her (especially the other servants in the house.)-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I found the mixed chapters we read of Bessy's story put a sense of reality on the true plight of young Irish women and men. From the early chapters discussing her families struggles and her earnestness to leave her home to help her family made me wonder if all young immigrants cared the same for Ireland and their families as Bessy? Chapters 6 and 15 stood out the most to me with their discussion of religion and how it was so important eventually leading to Bessy's dismissal was this normal in America? Did Americans fear religious takeover from the Irish immigrants? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
I thought the pictures of the starving people was awful and it was hard to read the chapter about Bessy's starving family. They kept their faith in God and kept saying that God would save them. I cannot imagine having enough food. Bessy was definitely a very lucky girl that she had a good job and earned quite a bit of money. It think it is interesting that Mary Anne Sadlier made Bessy out to be a hard worker which and implied that is why she was successful. Bessy just had a better opportunity then most. The author made the other servant out to be lazy which is why they ultimately were lost to poverty. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Jannicke Saehle, 1847, Norwegian immigrant’s letters ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== William Sanger, New York Prostitutes, 1858 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Sanger sympathizes with the prostitutes in his study and that he blamed fathers, husbands, and families for not doing their job. The immorality is from the failures of these figures in women's lives. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I also found Dr. Sanger's belief that the women he interviewed were victims of their environment (and not necessarily prostitutes because of a moral flaw in character, etc.) very interesting. I think it could be applied in geographical concepts and ideas, too- for example, the belief in "environmental determinism" (or the idea that your environment and surroundings have a major impact on who you are as a person) versus "environmental possibilism", where your environment can place some limits on you, but you are essentially responsible for who you are and what you do. I also found it interesting that, in discussing the reasons why some of the women would have cited "Inclination" as a reason for their becoming a prostitute, Dr. Sanger also mentioned and acknowledged female desires. In most of what we have discussed in class, we have talked about how women were expected to be "pure" and "chaste", while only men could actually have sexual desires and emotions. Dr. Sanger states, "The force of desire can be neither denied nor disputed, but still in the bosoms of most females that force exists in a slumbering state until aroused by some outside influences." Thus, he still, in many ways, is reinforcing the belief that women (while acknowledging that they might actually have "desires"- shocking!)should keep these repressed and private. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I didn't find the statistics gathered by Sanger to be other than what I expected. Young, immigrants, poor, etc. I did find it amusing that he (as well as everybody else) was convinced women were passionless and just would not be inclined to do such a "profession". - Christine<br />
<br />
The causes for women turning to prostitution were varied but most were centered around what others did to them. Family abandoning them, violated, alcohol were some of the reasons. I thought what was particularly interesting was the number one reason: they voluntarily went into prostitution to gratify their own sexual passions. If the survey is true, why would Sanger feel sympathetic towards the women? The choice was theirs in most cases. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Xin Jin's Contract, 1886 ==<br />
<br />
I just find it very strange that there were contracts for prostitution. It seems short, but rather thorough. They make sure to include what happens if shes sick, pregnant, or runs away. The three most plausible situations I suppose. - Christine<br />
<br />
While this passage was short, it was clear and concise of the punishments women (Xin Jin)would face if they violated their contracts. I did not find it fair that Xin Jin was brought here and owed the family money but was given no means necessary to fulfill her payment other than prostitution. Did Americans find this to be a valid occupation? After reading this contract I wonder if other immigrants faced the same sort of contract or forms of punishment if they did comply? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Bills of Sale of Chinese Prostitutes, 1875-76 ==<br />
I still think it's crazy that the price of passage/ food for some Chinese women coming to America was prostitution. I guess if things were worse back in China the option to become a prostitute might seem bright, but I don't know. The terms for this "occupation" was usually for a few years. These women must have been in real need; I don't think selling my body would ever be worth coming to America for me. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
To add to what Amy was saying about the length of time a woman would have to serve her term, I find it excessive that if a woman were to "escape and be recovered" (p.238), at least in the case of Yut Kum, then they were asking for a life sentence. I find this extremely excessive. And also, conception is noted as a "sickness" (p. 238); were pregnancies common within concubines? Granted, I doubt that a servant's mistress would be too concerned with the latest birth control methods. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
== Susan Shelby Magoffin in Santa Fe, 1846 ==<br />
Although the writer of this piece was far from the “civilized” East Coast of the United States, I still found that the cult of domesticity still impacted her. She was very proud of her ability to manage her household, including the servants. In her opinion, success was attained when she could “gain one bright smile and sweet kiss, from my good, kind husband.” She was very concerned with making her home a refuge for her husband when he returned from work. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Citizen protest of rape of Indian women in California, 1862 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Zitkala-Sa Travels to the Land of the Big Red Apples, 1884 ==<br />
<br />
This piece made me kind of sad, especially for the mother, who I feel like realizes what her daughter wants to do and knows that getting an education will be good and beneficial for her, but still does not want to let her go. I feel like the mother in many ways perhaps feels cautious towards the "white men" and the missionaries and distrusts them, and yet, despite this, she sees the merits of an education for her daughter, as well as her daughter's excitement, and feels she must let her go. I think this relates a lot to what we talked about in class about possible tensions within families as a result of attempts at assimilation, especially between generations. The daughter is excited for this opportunity and to ride on the "iron horse" and to see the land where there are plenty of red apples to eat for everybody, while the mother is watching her traditional world rapidly change all around her because of the white settlers and missionaries- she has to give up her wigwam and now live in a log house, for example. She is a "foreigner" in her own home. At the same time, I also feel sorry for the daughter, as well. After all her excitement at the opportunity to go East, she watches the "lonely figure" of her mother vanish as she drives away, and then feels as "frightened and bewildered as the captured young of a wild creature." (p.241) I wonder if this was her first time being away from home and all by herself? I feel as if maybe her mother knew exactly what the daughter was getting herself into, but she still let her go- maybe so the daughter could realize it for herself? It is a hard lesson. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
One of the first things that I noticed when reading this piece was the absence of a father. Her brother Dawee does not seem to be old enough to be part of the decision making process. When faced with the decision, her mother seems very reluctant to let Zitkala-Sa go away but is unable to make a firm decision. Do you think this situation would have been different if there was a father figure? Would he have let Zitkala-Sa go away to the white-run school as easily as the mother did? Would she have been as eager to go? - John Rowley<br />
<br />
== Mrs. A. M. Greene, in Colorado Territory -- Frontier life – 1887 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Violet Cragg requests an Army Pension, 1908 ==</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-28T20:08:38Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==<br />
I think it's interesting Angelina Grimke Weld, when referring to the abuse of the Cruel Mistress towards her house servants, points out that this woman had no shame in the abuse towards them. Weld goes on and on about these horrible atrocities of the abuse and stated throughout this piece that this mistress was a respectable Christian women. This made Weld as an abolitionist stand out as only a few. The abuse of slaves was accepted and probably expected in order to remain in control of them in the eyes of a slave owner. This slave holder without a doubt probably made a spectacle to make sure the slaves remained obedient. This female mistress seems extremely temperamental. The pious and vulgar language used against her slaves was likely her attempt to make sure they knew she was above them in every manor -race, class, and possibly better in Gods eyes as well. I am curious to know how they thought God looked at a black person, did they think God perceived them as they did? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that this woman is such a paragon of virtue according to upper society and she is kind and generous to the poor but cannot see what a tyrant she is toward her slaves. It is also interesting to see a woman who id depicted in a cruel light. They are supposed to be the kinder gentler sex and here she is committing atrocities toward her slaves. It is an abuse of power and yet because they are property she cannot see it as such. I am sure that women all over the south commited cruel if not crueler acts then their husbands. Women sometimes are much crueler then men so I am sure they thought of new ways to punish their slaves all the time. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==<br />
Personally, I liked McCords sarcasm, "Bravo! Mrs.Stowe! Your deductions are bold things, and override sense and reason with wonderful facility." She really attacked Stowe pretty hard with this review, though. And, I find it slightly suprising that she would be so pro-slavery, being that she grew up in the North. It seems to me that she should have been a little sympathetic towards slaves. But, perhaps she had slaves in the North too, and it wasn't much different to her than the South. I am curious to know if that may have been the case or not. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I also very much liked this piece. Louisa’s writing was smart, witty and fantastically snarky! I thought this was a great form of rebuttal, undermining the integrity of the argument presented as well as the author by sarcastically saying that Stowe was only perpetuating common ideas and lies about slavery. By over exaggerating several ideas in the book, such as: “The poor negro, astounded by the torrent of progress, which, bursting over the world, now hangs menacingly (for to the wild man is not civilization always menacing?) above him, would vainly follow with the stream, and is swept away in the current” Louisa discourages readers of Stowe to believe Stowes writing which Louisa shows to be fantastical and unreliable. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
Mary Chesnut, a woman of very high social standing, smoked opium? “It enables me to retain every particle of mind or sense or brains I ever have, & so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason & take rational views of things otherwise maddening.” (pg 221) She was very clear why she used the drug, but these statements made me curious about the popularity of opium. Did her friends use it too? Was it expensive or hard to obtain? Was there any social stigma against it? –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was also curious about Mary’s use of Opium. I know opium was used as medicine before morphine was popular, however I wonder as to how it was used. In her diary, Mary said: “I quickly took opium…”, does this mean it was still in its seed form or was it processed into a liquid or pill? Or was smoking an appropriate behavior for women? I was also very much intrigued by Mary’s very confusing ideas about slavery. In one section she writes that “ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity” and in yet another that” my countrywomen are as pure as angels- tho surrounded by another race who are- the social evil!” She appears to think slavery is wrong, however at the same time she retains a very racist attitude that seems to oppose her earlier statement. Maybe she ought to lay off the opium before she begins to ponder theoretical issues... -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
The introduction to this narrative stated that it was in a slave woman’s best interest to have children because it decreased her likelihood of being sold. The benefits are not so clear in Rose Williams’s case because her owner did not let her choose her partner. I think this provides a good example to show that slavery could be a quid pro quo relationship. Rose’s owner did something nice for her, bought her along with her parents, and then used that as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted out of her. Of course the slaveholder always had the upper hand, but I think it is important to note that some bargaining occurred. As I was reading for another class, I came across a slave woman who remarked about her master: “I own him and he owns me.” The master-slave relationship was anything but simple. –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison's statements and the second paragraph in this piece sums up slave women perfectly stating, "child-bearing increased her value as a slave..." (226). Slave women were less likely to be separated from their children because slave-owners wanted to keep the mother around for reprodution and to train her children to be the ideal slave for the master. But, in the case of Rose Williams, did she really profit from being sold alongside her parents? The slave-owners and slave relationship appeared to be a give and take, even though the owner normally won slaves learned from masters mistakes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
Reading this document made me sad. I can only imagine the turmoil going through Lucinda, deciding to give up her freedom so that she could be with her husband. She must have loved him very much. But I wonder, Perhaps Lucinda did not only stay because of her husband. I mean, that was a big part of it, but she may also have been scared to leave the area that she lived in for so long. Her husband may have been the major factor, but maybe she just really did not want to go to Tennessee. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
I found Mrs. Hayes recollection of slavery to be on the mark and amusing. The story of her youth is important to understanding what a former slave family had to go through after the Civil War, but the short paragraphs on Diana stood out the most to me. Diana appeared to be cunning and knew how to outwit the white man, when slaves were thought to be "child-like" Diana outsmarted her master. She knew she could not run away from slavery, but she knew how to manipulate it to her advantage and this proves any slave-owners theory on slaves as false in my eyes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
I agree with Thelma Jennings that African American slave women were sexually exploited. Reading the stories they told of the atrocities imposed by white slave owners was horrifying and at sometimes difficult to read. Jennings stated that the ideology of race played a key role and explained the view white slave owners. Though some slaves were treated better than others, I think it’s important to remember that when slave owners bought a slave they became your property and were looked at as capital. It was the idea of investing in your capital to produce more then they could make more money. African American slaves - particularly women which Jenning’s referred to, were considered as an item not as a person. Though it is twisted to think people are property, they did then, and it allowed white slave owners to take advantage of their slaves in any and every way they could. -Marsha<br />
<br />
Thelma Jennings writes the sad tale of women who are sexually exploited. They were forced to have sex with other slaves so that there would me more slaves. Many white men gave no consideration to women who were married and would force them to have sex with others despite this. This is disturbing and I imagine that the women who were subject to this sexual abuse have a wealth of bitterness. I could never live under these conditions and I have respect for the endurance of these women. - LeAnn Taggart</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-28T19:30:57Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Angelina Grimké Weld, 1839, “The Cruel Mistress” ==<br />
I think it's interesting Angelina Grimke Weld, when referring to the abuse of the Cruel Mistress towards her house servants, points out that this woman had no shame in the abuse towards them. Weld goes on and on about these horrible atrocities of the abuse and stated throughout this piece that this mistress was a respectable Christian women. This made Weld as an abolitionist stand out as only a few. The abuse of slaves was accepted and probably expected in order to remain in control of them in the eyes of a slave owner. This slave holder without a doubt probably made a spectacle to make sure the slaves remained obedient. This female mistress seems extremely temperamental. The pious and vulgar language used against her slaves was likely her attempt to make sure they knew she was above them in every manor -race, class, and possibly better in Gods eyes as well. I am curious to know how they thought God looked at a black person, did they think God perceived them as they did? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I think it is interesting that this woman is such a paragon of virtue according to upper society and she is kind and generous to the poor but cannot see what a tyrant she is toward her slaves. It is also interesting to see a woman who id depicted in a cruel light. They are supposed to be the kinder gentler sex and here she is committing atrocities toward her slaves. It is an abuse of power and yet because they are property she cannot see it as such. I am sure that women all over the south commited cruel if not crueler acts then their husbands. Women sometimes are much crueler then men so I am sure they thought of new ways to punish their slaves all the time. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Louisa S. Cheeves McCord, “Review of Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” 1853 ==<br />
Personally, I liked McCords sarcasm, "Bravo! Mrs.Stowe! Your deductions are bold things, and override sense and reason with wonderful facility." She really attacked Stowe pretty hard with this review, though. And, I find it slightly suprising that she would be so pro-slavery, being that she grew up in the North. It seems to me that she should have been a little sympathetic towards slaves. But, perhaps she had slaves in the North too, and it wasn't much different to her than the South. I am curious to know if that may have been the case or not. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I also very much liked this piece. Louisa’s writing was smart, witty and fantastically snarky! I thought this was a great form of rebuttal, undermining the integrity of the argument presented as well as the author by sarcastically saying that Stowe was only perpetuating common ideas and lies about slavery. By over exaggerating several ideas in the book, such as: “The poor negro, astounded by the torrent of progress, which, bursting over the world, now hangs menacingly (for to the wild man is not civilization always menacing?) above him, would vainly follow with the stream, and is swept away in the current” Louisa discourages readers of Stowe to believe Stowes writing which Louisa shows to be fantastical and unreliable. -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Mary Boykin Chestnut’s diary, 1861 ==<br />
Mary Chesnut, a woman of very high social standing, smoked opium? “It enables me to retain every particle of mind or sense or brains I ever have, & so quiets my nerves that I can calmly reason & take rational views of things otherwise maddening.” (pg 221) She was very clear why she used the drug, but these statements made me curious about the popularity of opium. Did her friends use it too? Was it expensive or hard to obtain? Was there any social stigma against it? –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was also curious about Mary’s use of Opium. I know opium was used as medicine before morphine was popular, however I wonder as to how it was used. In her diary, Mary said: “I quickly took opium…”, does this mean it was still in its seed form or was it processed into a liquid or pill? Or was smoking an appropriate behavior for women? I was also very much intrigued by Mary’s very confusing ideas about slavery. In one section she writes that “ours is a monstrous system & wrong & iniquity” and in yet another that” my countrywomen are as pure as angels- tho surrounded by another race who are- the social evil!” She appears to think slavery is wrong, however at the same time she retains a very racist attitude that seems to oppose her earlier statement. Maybe she ought to lay off the opium before she begins to ponder theoretical issues... -- Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. ==<br />
The introduction to this narrative stated that it was in a slave woman’s best interest to have children because it decreased her likelihood of being sold. The benefits are not so clear in Rose Williams’s case because her owner did not let her choose her partner. I think this provides a good example to show that slavery could be a quid pro quo relationship. Rose’s owner did something nice for her, bought her along with her parents, and then used that as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted out of her. Of course the slaveholder always had the upper hand, but I think it is important to note that some bargaining occurred. As I was reading for another class, I came across a slave woman who remarked about her master: “I own him and he owns me.” The master-slave relationship was anything but simple. –Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison's statements and the second paragraph in this piece sums up slave women perfectly stating, "child-bearing increased her value as a slave..." (226). Slave women were less likely to be separated from their children because slave-owners wanted to keep the mother around for reprodution and to train her children to be the ideal slave for the master. But, in the case of Rose Williams, did she really profit from being sold alongside her parents? The slave-owners and slave relationship appeared to be a give and take, even though the owner normally won slaves learned from masters mistakes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Lucinda, a free woman, requests reenslavement, 1813 ==<br />
Reading this document made me sad. I can only imagine the turmoil going through Lucinda, deciding to give up her freedom so that she could be with her husband. She must have loved him very much. But I wonder, Perhaps Lucinda did not only stay because of her husband. I mean, that was a big part of it, but she may also have been scared to leave the area that she lived in for so long. Her husband may have been the major factor, but maybe she just really did not want to go to Tennessee. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Still, black abolitionist, along with other Philadelphia free women, forms “Female Publication Society” to promote the moral uplift of free and slave African Americans, 1861 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mrs. Virginia Hayes Shepherd’s memories, 1937 ==<br />
I found Mrs. Hayes recollection of slavery to be on the mark and amusing. The story of her youth is important to understanding what a former slave family had to go through after the Civil War, but the short paragraphs on Diana stood out the most to me. Diana appeared to be cunning and knew how to outwit the white man, when slaves were thought to be "child-like" Diana outsmarted her master. She knew she could not run away from slavery, but she knew how to manipulate it to her advantage and this proves any slave-owners theory on slaves as false in my eyes. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Thelma Jennings, “Sexual Exploitation of African American Slave Women,” 1990 ==<br />
I agree with Thelma Jennings that African American slave women were sexually exploited. Reading the stories they told of the atrocities imposed by white slave owners was horrifying and at sometimes difficult to read. Jennings stated that the ideology of race played a key role and explained the view white slave owners. Though some slaves were treated better than others, I think it’s important to remember that when slave owners bought a slave they became your property and were looked at as capital. It was the idea of investing in your capital to produce more then they could make more money. African American slaves - particularly women which Jenning’s referred to, were considered as an item not as a person. Though it is twisted to think people are property, they did then, and it allowed white slave owners to take advantage of their slaves in any and every way they could. -Marsha</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-22T01:27:19Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== '''General Questions''' ==<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 7 '''<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
I think Emma is funny. I also find it very endearing that she was very concerned for her sister's matrimonial well-being. This highlights the new role of women being the nurturing, caring, raising type. Even as the old sister, she takes on the role of looking out for her younger sister. Also, it definitely shows the changing view in women's minds that they don't necessarily have to be married. I enjoy how she herself ended up being a cougar who enters a doomed marriage. - Christine<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine, I think this highlights a new role of women for the reasons Christine listed. I also think it shows how women perceived men at that time. I know that Emma had a bad experience with her husband who lost all of their money, so she had reason to be skeptical, but the stereotypes of men are very clear. The worries of Emma include, "the possibility of your lover's seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you," and "his business will occupy his attention". These are very real fears of women at that time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
It's amazing how once women had more of a choice of who they were going to marry, how hesitant and cautious they became. From this essay, it also seems that maybe it was a good thing that they were. Emma married and some years later her husband's finances collapsed. When her younger sister had a suitor, she warned her to proceed with caution. Ironically, the advice she gave to her sister could have benefited her when a gold digger took all her money. Poor Emma. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I found Gilman's story to be tragic. In a time when marriage was romanticized and a young women felt leaving her "paternal home" was not something to be dread; the story of Gilman's husband losing all of the romance from the beginning of their marriage is heart-wrenching. I also found that while strides had been made in married life, women such as Gilman, still bit their tongue instead of expressing an annoyance with their husband. The difference between the sexes is made apparent but I did enjoy Gilman stating she wanted marriage to remain romanticized. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I feel like a lot of these expectations on women persisted well into the twentieth century. To some extent, wasn't this the sentiment (or the challenging of this sentiment) that was the basis for a lot of the marital humor that appeared on shows like I Love Lucy? I think that the negotiation of a "companionate marriage," or maybe more specifically, the meaning of marriage in general, continues in a lot of ways to today. -erin b<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. I felt there were a lot of modern connections in this article. I think Caroline's idea that a woman must defer in a relationship to the man's way of doing things could also be seen in any modern issue of Cosmo. -Allison Luthern <br />
<br />
Caroline Gilman annoyed me. She basically says when men offend their wife they are surprised by it and yet she is saying she keeps her mouth shut when he did something to offend her. How is he to know that his wife was offended if she does not tell him? Then she says that when he does something she does not like she tells him calmly and if unreformed she just accepts it. She gives contrary information. I guess I just do not like it when women accept their lot and move on. I am so glad I am not her. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Were these books intended for women who had not gone to the womens academies at the time? or did Beecher just have a different view on how/when house work should be done which conflicted with what was taught at the schools? I found it interesting that unlike many previous articles we've read, the subject of equality is disregarded as a frivolous and impossible question to answer and "there would be no possible advantage in the decision." isnt this a subtle way of saying that men and women should be equal? -Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
Here we see not only the dependence of women economically, at the time, on men but in her diary entries we also see the signs of the level of romantic love that was popular at this time. She appears to have a very close nit family, which we can see in her letters to and from her children. maybe i missed something, but why was there a decrease in remarriage that was previously more prevalent? did they think that marriage absolutely had to be a romantic engagement and that the idea of a practical marriage was completely gone? - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I enjoy the Rules for the School. They are exactly how I'd expect to to be at this time: focused on appearance, courteous sportment, industrious behavior, pious routines, and orderly habits. They are raising ladies that will be raising their own children and tending to their husbands and must be their educations must be crafted in a certain way. However, I would like to know what were rules at male schools of the time. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard's goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men's colleges. She was profound in using such words as national prosperity, national and unparalleled glory, a nation wise, and to defend her liberties, to persuade members of the legislature. I think she meant that it was essential to educate women in a way to maintain these liberties. I think when she refered to the shackles that the revolution removed from the nation she also compared the shackles to that on women. She made it evident that it was important to focus on educating women on moral and intellectual importance than frivolous things like dress and fashion. I think she thought women had an obligation to their children, family, and themselves and she took it very seriously - so should those determining education of women. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
As I was reading Miss Burnam's Report, I kept thinking why would the parents of the Native American children bring them to this school? Choctaws were more civilized into American cultures than before but I don't think enough to want to send their children off with strangers that taught a different way of life. I think those parents (in order to survive) knew this was the only way to protect their children and to merge them into American society in a peaceful way. In Miss Burnam's report, she mentioned difficulties with some of the children. They would get emotional because they felt their brother or sister was not getting the same treatment as them. The children were compassionate and concerned for their families. Learning about God gave them a sense of being a sinner and being forgiven, and this made them feel guilty because in the eyes of what they were being taught, it meant their families were sinners. One of the girls said her family was all bad and another girl said her brother was stupid and she worried about him. I think these children were torn by what they learned as young children with their families and what was new and unknown. When your young it sometimes makes it easier to adapt. I think some of these girls adapted well, loved their teachers and attached themselves to them because that did not have their parents around. The teacher became more like a parent to them. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading this report, I compared Native Americans leaving their children at the school to parents leaving their children at college. In both cases it is hard for child and parent, and for a first time generation college student it is even more of an eye opener, much like the Native American children. They were unfamiliar with customs, scared to leave parents, felt they had different treatment than other family memebers, and turned to teachers (college case professors) for guidance and someone to rely on when away from home. I agree with Marsha the children were torn and unsure how to react in a new place with strangers. With time I feel the girls adjusted well and were able to learn and feel comfortable with their surroundings. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
Although the ability to seek work in a new town, independent of family could be seen as an advancement for young women of the early nineteenth-century, I thought the rules of the Lowell textile mills seemed to echo our old friend patriarchy. These female workers were clearly at the bottom of the power hierarchy beneath the factory management, overseer, and the boarding house keepers. They appeared to have very little freedom of movement or actions. I was curious if these rules would have been different if the Lowell factories had a male workforce. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
I loved this letter to Selden. It was absolutly fascinating. I cannot believe she has a kitchen with no doors so the animals just walk in. I laughed when she said a rat jumped into bed with her. I think she is a very courageous woman to live the way she does. She is so hardworking I am amazed at the amount of activity she does in a day. I would be completely exhausted. I felt bad for her when she said that she was homesick. She talked to another woman who said she was so homesick she could die and I can image life was 20 times harder in California then it was in the more civilized east coast. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
The Cherokee women who composed this address spoke of the great injustice of being forced to move beyond the Mississippi. These women said that they have done what white Americans had wanted: many converted to Christianity, they farmed, and educated their children, sometimes sending them to missionary schools. However, I think these women’s action of addressing the male leaders about a political issue is more reminiscent of Native American women’s traditional gender roles before contact. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This was the most amusing thing to read. I love reading Native American tales because you can learn about their cultures and ways of thinking/lives and there always seems to be some sort of lesson. The mother-in-law got what was coming disappearing in the abyss. -Christine<br />
<br />
<br />
I really liked this tale. It was crazy but funny. I couldn't believe the mother thought she could pretend to be the daughter; like the husband and brother wouldn't know it was her and not the daughter. I wonder if this ever really happened in a Native American tribe? I'm sure she didn't actually turn into a mermaid or the mother fall into the abyss but it seems like something that could be probable. The tale also seems to teach reinforce the lesson "blood is thicker than water." People in today's society could benefit from reading this. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-22T01:01:46Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== '''General Questions''' ==<br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 7 '''<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “Matrimonial Risks,” 1815 ==<br />
<br />
I think Emma is funny. I also find it very endearing that she was very concerned for her sister's matrimonial well-being. This highlights the new role of women being the nurturing, caring, raising type. Even as the old sister, she takes on the role of looking out for her younger sister. Also, it definitely shows the changing view in women's minds that they don't necessarily have to be married. I enjoy how she herself ended up being a cougar who enters a doomed marriage. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Caroline Gilman, “The Deferential Wife,” 1838 ==<br />
<br />
I found Gilman's story to be tragic. In a time when marriage was romanticized and a young women felt leaving her "paternal home" was not something to be dread; the story of Gilman's husband losing all of the romance from the beginning of their marriage is heart-wrenching. I also found that while strides had been made in married life, women such as Gilman, still bit their tongue instead of expressing an annoyance with their husband. The difference between the sexes is made apparent but I did enjoy Gilman stating she wanted marriage to remain romanticized. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I feel like a lot of these expectations on women persisted well into the twentieth century. To some extent, wasn't this the sentiment (or the challenging of this sentiment) that was the basis for a lot of the marital humor that appeared on shows like I Love Lucy? I think that the negotiation of a "companionate marriage," or maybe more specifically, the meaning of marriage in general, continues in a lot of ways to today. -erin b<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. I felt there were a lot of modern connections in this article. I think Caroline's idea that a woman must defer in a relationship to the man's way of doing things could also be seen in any modern issue of Cosmo. -Allison Luthern <br />
<br />
Caroline Gilman annoyed me. She basically says when men offend their wife they are surprised by it and yet she is saying she keeps her mouth shut when he did something to offend her. How is he to know that his wife was offended if she does not tell him? Then she says that when he does something she does not like she tells him calmly and if unreformed she just accepts it. She gives contrary information. I guess I just do not like it when women accept their lot and move on. I am so glad I am not her. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Catharine Beecher, “System and Order,” 1841 ==<br />
<br />
Were these books intended for women who had not gone to the womens academies at the time? or did Beecher just have a different view on how/when house work should be done which conflicted with what was taught at the schools? I found it interesting that unlike many previous articles we've read, the subject of equality is disregarded as a frivolous and impossible question to answer and "there would be no possible advantage in the decision." isnt this a subtle way of saying that men and women should be equal? -Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Connell Ayer, “The Widowed State,” 1832-33 ==<br />
<br />
Here we see not only the dependence of women economically, at the time, on men but in her diary entries we also see the signs of the level of romantic love that was popular at this time. She appears to have a very close nit family, which we can see in her letters to and from her children. maybe i missed something, but why was there a decrease in remarriage that was previously more prevalent? did they think that marriage absolutely had to be a romantic engagement and that the idea of a practical marriage was completely gone? - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eliza Ann Mulford, “Rules of the School,” 1814 ==<br />
<br />
I enjoy the Rules for the School. They are exactly how I'd expect to to be at this time: focused on appearance, courteous sportment, industrious behavior, pious routines, and orderly habits. They are raising ladies that will be raising their own children and tending to their husbands and must be their educations must be crafted in a certain way. However, I would like to know what were rules at male schools of the time. - Christine<br />
<br />
== Emma Willard, “A Rationale for Female Education,” 1819 ==<br />
I think this work is interesting because Emma Willard's goal was to educate women on the same subjects that were taught at men's colleges. She was profound in using such words as national prosperity, national and unparalleled glory, a nation wise, and to defend her liberties, to persuade members of the legislature. I think she meant that it was essential to educate women in a way to maintain these liberties. I think when she refered to the shackles that the revolution removed from the nation she also compared the shackles to that on women. She made it evident that it was important to focus on educating women on moral and intellectual importance than frivolous things like dress and fashion. I think she thought women had an obligation to their children, family, and themselves and she took it very seriously - so should those determining education of women. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Miss Burnham’s Report, “A Choctaw Mission School,” 1824 ==<br />
As I was reading Miss Burnam's Report, I kept thinking why would the parents of the Native American children bring them to this school? Choctaws were more civilized into American cultures than before but I don't think enough to want to send their children off with strangers that taught a different way of life. I think those parents (in order to survive) knew this was the only way to protect their children and to merge them into American society in a peaceful way. In Miss Burnam's report, she mentioned difficulties with some of the children. They would get emotional because they felt their brother or sister was not getting the same treatment as them. The children were compassionate and concerned for their families. Learning about God gave them a sense of being a sinner and being forgiven, and this made them feel guilty because in the eyes of what they were being taught, it meant their families were sinners. One of the girls said her family was all bad and another girl said her brother was stupid and she worried about him. I think these children were torn by what they learned as young children with their families and what was new and unknown. When your young it sometimes makes it easier to adapt. I think some of these girls adapted well, loved their teachers and attached themselves to them because that did not have their parents around. The teacher became more like a parent to them. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
After reading this report, I compared Native Americans leaving their children at the school to parents leaving their children at college. In both cases it is hard for child and parent, and for a first time generation college student it is even more of an eye opener, much like the Native American children. They were unfamiliar with customs, scared to leave parents, felt they had different treatment than other family memebers, and turned to teachers (college case professors) for guidance and someone to rely on when away from home. I agree with Marsha the children were torn and unsure how to react in a new place with strangers. With time I feel the girls adjusted well and were able to learn and feel comfortable with their surroundings. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Letters from Teachers, “Reports on Western Schools,” 1847 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rules of the Mill from Lowell and Lancaster, 1820-1840 ==<br />
Although the ability to seek work in a new town, independent of family could be seen as an advancement for young women of the early nineteenth-century, I thought the rules of the Lowell textile mills seemed to echo our old friend patriarchy. These female workers were clearly at the bottom of the power hierarchy beneath the factory management, overseer, and the boarding house keepers. They appeared to have very little freedom of movement or actions. I was curious if these rules would have been different if the Lowell factories had a male workforce. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 ==<br />
<br />
== Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Petitions of the Cherokee Women’s Council on Removal, 1817, 1818 ==<br />
The Cherokee women who composed this address spoke of the great injustice of being forced to move beyond the Mississippi. These women said that they have done what white Americans had wanted: many converted to Christianity, they farmed, and educated their children, sometimes sending them to missionary schools. However, I think these women’s action of addressing the male leaders about a political issue is more reminiscent of Native American women’s traditional gender roles before contact. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” ==<br />
<br />
This was the most amusing thing to read. I love reading Native American tales because you can learn about their cultures and ways of thinking/lives and there always seems to be some sort of lesson. The mother-in-law got what was coming disappearing in the abyss. -Christine<br />
<br />
<br />
I really liked this tale. It was crazy but funny. I couldn't believe the mother thought she could pretend to be the daughter; like the husband and brother wouldn't know it was her and not the daughter. I wonder if this ever really happened in a Native American tribe? I'm sure she didn't actually turn into a mermaid or the mother fall into the abyss but it seems like something that could be probable. The tale also seems to teach reinforce the lesson "blood is thicker than water." People in today's society could benefit from reading this. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-14T23:34:38Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading about the antenuptial contracts. I have never heard of these contracts existing during this time period. I thought that these contracts were a more "modern" idea. The antenuptial contracts during this time made a lot more sense to me after I read some of the stipulations that they entailed. For instance, Woloch says that a well-off father could seek an antenuptial contract for his daughter. Although this contract would protect the women and her property, it still was initiated by a man. In the case of Ann Allen, her children (from a previous husband) could retain their inheritances upon her new husband's death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett's death? -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I also had never heard of these "antenuptial contracts." It seemed very fitting thar some women who came into marriage with something of their own would want to keep it, especially some fathers looking after their daughter's interests. However, how common was it that children or wives wouldn't receive their "portions," as in the case Bozoon Allen and how likely would it be for their inheritance to be recovered? - Christine<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
What caught my attention the most in this piece was the case of Robert Wade (1657). First, I love how they write, "in refrence to his wives unworthy, sinfull, yea, unnatural cariage towards him..." As if the woman is a complete monster. And, in the other cases (which were all of women divorcing their husbands), they do not say anything about the husbands were so horrible just that they did something wrong or have been gone, etc. and that is it. Obviously, the courts must have thought that if a woman deserted her husband then that is much more horrible than if the man deserted his wife. <br />
The other thing that caught my eye was the fact that this is a man asking for a divorce, and all the others are women asking for the divorce. I would bet that the men may have thought it beneath them to ask for a divorce, even if they wanted it, and that is why man asking for a divorce is much less common. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The fact that Connecticut permitted divorces does extend some legal protection for abandoned married women. However, it is obvious that the Connecticut legislature was more sympathetic to men seeking this divorce-by-neglect rather than women. When Goody Beckwith and Hanna Huit requested a divorce, the legislature required others to testify that the women’s story of their husbands’ desertion was true. However, when Robert Wade=2 0requested a divorce from his runaway wife, the legislature was horrified, obviously sympathetic, and did not bother to double-check his story. A modern observer should not declare the new legal action of divorce a total triumph for the rights of women. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
It was interesting to read about the feme sole laws in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Pennsylvania allowed women whose husbands would not support them to become feme soles. That was definitely a positive gain for women whose husbands deserted them or were bankrupt. It makes sense that the women may have had to use their earnings to pay off their deadbeat husband's debts because that is basically like marriage today. If one spouse goes into debt then they are both in debt. I also found in interesting that South Carolina did not specify who could or could not be a feme sole. Of course, a married woman who wanted to become a feme sole would have needed to have written permission from their husband. Still, the idea of allowing a married woman to participate in business shows that South Carolina was pretty liberal at this time. I find it funny that South Carolina was liberal back then, but isn't exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
In the Malefactors and Complaints there seems to be a general way of punishment. You were either whipped, sent away, and or had to pay a fine. The women seemed to be treated much more harshly then men and they tended to be made an example of, in particular Margaret Brewster. It seems harsh for a women to be stripped from waste down, tide to a cart and to have received 20 stripes for coming to church not looking appropriate for the occasion. The way she was described she almost sounds as if she's homeless. John Man was sentenced with bond of 200 lbs for his good behavior for beating of his servant but received no stripes (which would have seemed fitting for what he had done to her.) Then again she was a woman and a servant though it does state she was set free from her indenture. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that William Backway and his wife were punished for "fornication before theire marriage". They got married so who cares? I also thought it was interesting that stealing and fornication had the same punishment being striped 15 times. Now stealing is much more of a big deal then having an affair. I agree with Marsha, the men had it easier. The woman has sex and is whipped the men have sex and they pay a fine. That is so ridiculous. It takes two to have a baby. They should have the same punishment. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how, in this section, there was mention of Rebecca Auborne, who was sentenced to be whipped and to pay a fine for "committing Fornication with Samuel Kemble having a bastard Childe". In the next paragraph, however, Samuel Kemble is ordered to pay to Rebecca "two Shillings six pence" per week to support the child.(p.81) I wonder how the child, or any child who is born in such a circumstance, would be treated in colonial America? Would they be "assimilated" with any future children their mother might have with her husband, or would they be forever treated as "outcasts" and/or not accepted? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
I thought it was interesting reading the wills of men. The order of recipients in the wills caught my eye. The majority of the men left their belongings first to their sons, his daughters next, followed by the wife. In very few cases was the wife mentioned first and in them if the wife married someone else the law would decide what she would receive and she would receive very little of the estate. - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The wills aren't all too surprising... sons, daughters, then wife. Typical. My question is how were wills left? Was there a person they were given to in town or did they just keep them handy at the bedside? - Christine<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
Comparing these women's wills to the men's in the previous articles, it is obvious that there is a clear distinction. The women commonly left their property to their daughters first and then their sons. I think the women tended to be biased towards the females of their family because they wanted them to receive as much as possible for they would not get to own very much of their own throughout their life. The boys on the other hand would have many rights and own real property of their own. I liked the fact that the women were trying to give the daughters as much as they could after their death.- Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the wills of women to be rather interesting. After reading the previous articles I questioned whether women wrote them or not, seeing as their property was that of their husbands. Women did give to their daughers first and then their sons, but what I found different about women's wills was they were more personal. Women wanted to make sure their children and in some cases grandchildren were taken care of down to the slightest detail of giving a daughter "a set of gold buttons "to the value of a Pistole.""(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that women's wills seem much more personal, and the attention to detail is amazing. I think it is also interesting to see hoe wills can express what people value most, even today. I especially liked the will of Jane Jones, written in July 1756. In it, she leaves 5 shillings to her son, John Jones, and then goes on to mention her daughters and what she is bequeathing to them. The list for her daughters is much more detailed and personal. Of course, as the editor mentions, she could be compensating her daughters for the neglect they may have felt from their father's will (much of what would have probably gone to his son). Or, she simply could have had a closer bond and attachment to her daughters. I think wills in general, and especially those of women of this time period, reveal quite a lot at the same time that they pose quite a few questions that we aren't really sure about or cannot answer definitively. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to learn that women's deed of gifts and wills were quite different than men in Petersburg. Not only was it out of the ordinary for women to have wills but very interesting to read about what they willed and who they willed it to. Mary Bolling is interesting because she included some of her heirs but excluded others such as her grandson Thomas Shore. The idea that women played favorites and designated who got what instead of most men's wills dividing everything equally among their heirs. I can't help but think about my grandmother when I read this chapter in the book. As we went through her things after she passed, we found little notes with specific names on it willed to that person. These items were not actually in her will but they meant enough in her mind to give it to a specific person. Though the women in Petersburg were in a different time than my grandmother, it gives us a sense of women's thought process. The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma's favorite, or who asked first? Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men's wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
On my other post I had remarked that I found it interesting that women wrote wills during the nineteenth century but through this article I found more interesting how light-hearted women were about wills. "It may have been that women, who looked at death with every pregnancy...had less trouble making preparations for their dying."(p. 134). This statement proved that although women seemed to have more trouble with finances in Petersburg they were willing to be prepared and to protect their assets for their heirs. Women are typically seen as being more caring and watchful over families and through the wills in this article I find it to be true over men. Men just wrote out property (moveable or not) and to whom, women gave thought to the process; was it due to the fact that they were more nurturing or prepared? Did women face death more often than men of the nineteenth century? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this article was fascinating. The author described a period of time when single women had more control over property. I was curious about how men reacted to this new development. Thomas Jefferson was an adolescent when his father died. He received property and slaves from his father, but due to his young age, his mother had some control over her husband’s estate. Young Jefferson was not too happy about this situation and I do not think it was a coincidence that the rest his life was void of a strong attachment to his mother and any assertion of legal rights for women. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read that women played favorites much more then men when they wrote their wills. Then I thought about it and men almost always gave their land to their sons which is a sort of favoritism. I would expect women to give other women more then men because women live in an often precarious situation. They may not have enough money to live on or may have an unhappy marriage. All women feel the constraints society puts on them. It makes sense for women to leave their daughters more because men have most of the power. - LeAnn T.</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_8_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 8 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-14T23:28:34Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Antenuptial contract, Mass, 1653 ==<br />
<br />
I was surprised when reading about the antenuptial contracts. I have never heard of these contracts existing during this time period. I thought that these contracts were a more "modern" idea. The antenuptial contracts during this time made a lot more sense to me after I read some of the stipulations that they entailed. For instance, Woloch says that a well-off father could seek an antenuptial contract for his daughter. Although this contract would protect the women and her property, it still was initiated by a man. In the case of Ann Allen, her children (from a previous husband) could retain their inheritances upon her new husband's death. What if her children had reached adulthood prior to Mr. Jewett's death? -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I also had never heard of these "antenuptial contracts." It seemed very fitting thar some women who came into marriage with something of their own would want to keep it, especially some fathers looking after their daughter's interests. However, how common was it that children or wives wouldn't receive their "portions," as in the case Bozoon Allen and how likely would it be for their inheritance to be recovered? - Christine<br />
<br />
== New England Divorce, CT, 1655-1678; MD, 1680 ==<br />
What caught my attention the most in this piece was the case of Robert Wade (1657). First, I love how they write, "in refrence to his wives unworthy, sinfull, yea, unnatural cariage towards him..." As if the woman is a complete monster. And, in the other cases (which were all of women divorcing their husbands), they do not say anything about the husbands were so horrible just that they did something wrong or have been gone, etc. and that is it. Obviously, the courts must have thought that if a woman deserted her husband then that is much more horrible than if the man deserted his wife. <br />
The other thing that caught my eye was the fact that this is a man asking for a divorce, and all the others are women asking for the divorce. I would bet that the men may have thought it beneath them to ask for a divorce, even if they wanted it, and that is why man asking for a divorce is much less common. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The fact that Connecticut permitted divorces does extend some legal protection for abandoned married women. However, it is obvious that the Connecticut legislature was more sympathetic to men seeking this divorce-by-neglect rather than women. When Goody Beckwith and Hanna Huit requested a divorce, the legislature required others to testify that the women’s story of their husbands’ desertion was true. However, when Robert Wade=2 0requested a divorce from his runaway wife, the legislature was horrified, obviously sympathetic, and did not bother to double-check his story. A modern observer should not declare the new legal action of divorce a total triumph for the rights of women. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== SC feme sole trader acts, 1712, 1744 ==<br />
It was interesting to read about the feme sole laws in Pennsylvania and South Carolina. Pennsylvania allowed women whose husbands would not support them to become feme soles. That was definitely a positive gain for women whose husbands deserted them or were bankrupt. It makes sense that the women may have had to use their earnings to pay off their deadbeat husband's debts because that is basically like marriage today. If one spouse goes into debt then they are both in debt. I also found in interesting that South Carolina did not specify who could or could not be a feme sole. Of course, a married woman who wanted to become a feme sole would have needed to have written permission from their husband. Still, the idea of allowing a married woman to participate in business shows that South Carolina was pretty liberal at this time. I find it funny that South Carolina was liberal back then, but isn't exactly known for being liberal today. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mass, 1675-1680 – Women in county courts ==<br />
<br />
In the Malefactors and Complaints there seems to be a general way of punishment. You were either whipped, sent away, and or had to pay a fine. The women seemed to be treated much more harshly then men and they tended to be made an example of, in particular Margaret Brewster. It seems harsh for a women to be stripped from waste down, tide to a cart and to have received 20 stripes for coming to church not looking appropriate for the occasion. The way she was described she almost sounds as if she's homeless. John Man was sentenced with bond of 200 lbs for his good behavior for beating of his servant but received no stripes (which would have seemed fitting for what he had done to her.) Then again she was a woman and a servant though it does state she was set free from her indenture. - Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I find it interesting that William Backway and his wife were punished for "fornication before theire marriage". They got married so who cares? I also thought it was interesting that stealing and fornication had the same punishment being striped 15 times. Now stealing is much more of a big deal then having an affair. I agree with Marsha, the men had it easier. The woman has sex and is whipped the men have sex and they pay a fine. That is so ridiculous. It takes two to have a baby. They should have the same punishment. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how, in this section, there was mention of Rebecca Auborne, who was sentenced to be whipped and to pay a fine for "committing Fornication with Samuel Kemble having a bastard Childe". In the next paragraph, however, Samuel Kemble is ordered to pay to Rebecca "two Shillings six pence" per week to support the child.(p.81) I wonder how the child, or any child who is born in such a circumstance, would be treated in colonial America? Would they be "assimilated" with any future children their mother might have with her husband, or would they be forever treated as "outcasts" and/or not accepted? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Virginia, 1642, NY 1721-1759 – Widows, Wills and Dower Rights ==<br />
I thought it was interesting reading the wills of men. The order of recipients in the wills caught my eye. The majority of the men left their belongings first to their sons, his daughters next, followed by the wife. In very few cases was the wife mentioned first and in them if the wife married someone else the law would decide what she would receive and she would receive very little of the estate. - Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Women’s Estates, Mass, 1664, NY 1747-1759 ==<br />
Comparing these women's wills to the men's in the previous articles, it is obvious that there is a clear distinction. The women commonly left their property to their daughters first and then their sons. I think the women tended to be biased towards the females of their family because they wanted them to receive as much as possible for they would not get to own very much of their own throughout their life. The boys on the other hand would have many rights and own real property of their own. I liked the fact that the women were trying to give the daughters as much as they could after their death.- Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the wills of women to be rather interesting. After reading the previous articles I questioned whether women wrote them or not, seeing as their property was that of their husbands. Women did give to their daughers first and then their sons, but what I found different about women's wills was they were more personal. Women wanted to make sure their children and in some cases grandchildren were taken care of down to the slightest detail of giving a daughter "a set of gold buttons "to the value of a Pistole.""(p. 89). They took care of the smallest details and thought about the family more than themselves. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that women's wills seem much more personal, and the attention to detail is amazing. I think it is also interesting to see hoe wills can express what people value most, even today. I especially liked the will of Jane Jones, written in July 1756. In it, she leaves 5 shillings to her son, John Jones, and then goes on to mention her daughters and what she is bequeathing to them. The list for her daughters is much more detailed and personal. Of course, as the editor mentions, she could be compensating her daughters for the neglect they may have felt from their father's will (much of what would have probably gone to his son). Or, she simply could have had a closer bond and attachment to her daughters. I think wills in general, and especially those of women of this time period, reveal quite a lot at the same time that they pose quite a few questions that we aren't really sure about or cannot answer definitively. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Suzanne Lebsock, The Free Women of Petersburg ==<br />
<br />
It was interesting to learn that women's deed of gifts and wills were quite different than men in Petersburg. Not only was it out of the ordinary for women to have wills but very interesting to read about what they willed and who they willed it to. Mary Bolling is interesting because she included some of her heirs but excluded others such as her grandson Thomas Shore. The idea that women played favorites and designated who got what instead of most men's wills dividing everything equally among their heirs. I can't help but think about my grandmother when I read this chapter in the book. As we went through her things after she passed, we found little notes with specific names on it willed to that person. These items were not actually in her will but they meant enough in her mind to give it to a specific person. Though the women in Petersburg were in a different time than my grandmother, it gives us a sense of women's thought process. The thought of who would most benefit from receiving that gift, who was grandma's favorite, or who asked first? Women showed their nurturing abilities by denoting some security for their children. Men's wills did not show these specific details. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
<br />
On my other post I had remarked that I found it interesting that women wrote wills during the nineteenth century but through this article I found more interesting how light-hearted women were about wills. "It may have been that women, who looked at death with every pregnancy...had less trouble making preparations for their dying."(p. 134). This statement proved that although women seemed to have more trouble with finances in Petersburg they were willing to be prepared and to protect their assets for their heirs. Women are typically seen as being more caring and watchful over families and through the wills in this article I find it to be true over men. Men just wrote out property (moveable or not) and to whom, women gave thought to the process; was it due to the fact that they were more nurturing or prepared? Did women face death more often than men of the nineteenth century? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought this article was fascinating. The author described a period of time when single women had more control over property. I was curious about how men reacted to this new development. Thomas Jefferson was an adolescent when his father died. He received property and slaves from his father, but due to his young age, his mother had some control over her husband’s estate. Young Jefferson was not too happy about this situation and I do not think it was a coincidence that the rest his life was void of a strong attachment to his mother and any assertion of legal rights for women. -Allison Luthern</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-01T00:10:23Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 ==<br />
<br />
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost ''sixty years''? Wow. This one's a real bodice ripper, folks. Here we have the 18th century version of the Harlequin novel and a good plot for a Lifetime Original Movie. I would almost call it the worst thing I’ve ever read that's been published, except it was so entertaining. However, I don’t think I was entertained in the same way that 18th century women were (and I very much hope that it was mostly women reading this). I thought it was interesting how the preface says the novel is based on a true story, but the people involved are all dead and the names are changed, and, of course, the “Tale of Truth” bit in the title. Well, it’s nice to know people have been using ''that'' one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'', so it’s interesting that women seem to have a lot of success with novels in America. Does it have to do with the audience, which I presume is more often women than men? In the case of ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'', I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was ''Charlotte'' considered controversial in it's time? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This was such I great read I have to comment it on it more! So, what have I learned from this exceptional piece of literature? Do not under any circumstances disobey your parents or you will live a horrible life and then die (God might forgive you though, if you're repentant). If you do promise yourself to a man at the disapproval of your parents, don’t go back on your word or the once dashing officer will turn into Snidely Whiplash and kidnap you to another country, take advantage of you (but it’s not rape if you enjoy it), neglect you, and leave you pregnant and in poverty, and it will be all YOUR fault, because YOU forced him to take action due to your indecisiveness even if he’s the one that manipulated you into agreeing to be with him in the first place. Isn’t it so great that women can be just as and sometimes even more misogynistic than men? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Taylor's comments after reading this piece I was reminded of a modern day soap opera, filled with betrayal, love/lust, and desertion of a husband to take care of the children. I have to ask though how many women of the eighteenth century read this novel, and much less were literate? For a novel that was popular for 60 years I assume it did well, but I do think "Charlotte" was typical of women at the time. She went from the supervision of her father to a world run by her husband and was confined to the home. How did women feel about the novel? Did they agree their lives followed ideals of romance? And child rearing? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This document did a good job of keeping me entertained and interested. I probably would have been one of many who read this book during the time. Charlotte's character annoyed me a little. At first I wanted her to be with the man, but then when she started saying how she did not want to dishonor her family and respected them too much to leave, I thought those were good points also. One minute she's on her way to tell him she is not going with him and the next thing you know he is picking her up and putting her in the carriage to take her away. Were men in reality really this suave and cunning to be able to change a women's mind so quickly? She seemed to be determined and knew what she wanted but she sure threw that out the window. It's cool to see how a situation like this can also be seen today in modern times, when men are able to work their charm to capture womens' hearts. The endings can be quite sad sometimes, however. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I feel like Susanna Haswell Rowson was attempting to get a point across through this story. I feel she was trying to warn girls about what might happen if they were to decide to step out of the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. She portrayed Charlotte as a young woman who was very protected in her world, but it was a world that was aligned with the idea of women at the time. She went to boarding school, and was very proper. Then she met a boy and deserted her family, which at the time I'm sure was frowned upon greatly, and ran away with him. While it seemed romantic that she followed her heart, Rowson instantaneously portrays Charlotte as unhappy with her current life with Montraville. She regretted her decision especially when she became ill and was without Montraville. I feel Rowson displayed Charlotte in this way to show her readers/fans how easy it was for a woman to become blinded by love, how easy it was to throw away all social responsibility, and how it would end up in a disappointing life. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really did not like how she said her no one would censure her because the story was she is a moral woman and her story promoted good morals. Why does she feel the need to tell us that. Then she talks to the mothers who are reading her work not to worry again as if her work was raunchy. Her story was ridiculous. Charlotte was annoying, always crying and waiting for a man who does not love her. Then she dies as soon as her parents find her. The moral of the story is to obey your parents or you will be the most miserable person in the world and then you will die. I guess its nice that she was trying to warn girls about loving the wrong man but the story was melodramatic. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” ==<br />
<br />
In the piece by Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” In the introduction it states, “The maze of gender identities created as the views of a girl and a women are filtered through the perspective of a man, who is himself a fictional creation of a woman, adds another layer of meaning to the story.” So in reading this piece, I kept this layer of meaning in mind. I had a hard time reading some sections were blurred out. However, it seemed to me that the male view of Margaretta and her intelligence and education was positive. I am sure this probably wasn’t the overarching view that most males would have had at the time, so I am curious if this would have any impact on the readers at the time. What was Judith Murray going for? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In "The Story of Margaretta," I am not sure if she is writing through the eyes of a man because she thinks it would be read by more people or her agenda was to show Mr. Vigillius view on educating women in hopes that it would have changed things for women. In the story, a reference was made about Mary not being concerned with a women's dress though she was still a "complete housewife," showed that it was more important for Margaretta to be taught things that made her more intellectual. I think this made her more the exception. Mary had an extensive plan for Margaretta's education. Her education went outside the realm of housewifery duties which Mr. Vigillius stated Margaretta did with proficiency. Mr. Vigillius was not fond of Mary's education plans for Margaretta but he let the matter go. Through Mr Vigillius eyes, he thought in the long run Margaretta will be more intellectual for the education she received, after all a woman was to "inform the future man." I think Mr. Vigillius was also an exception because he admitted that in the long run Margaretta's extensive education would make her life more distinguished. -Marsha H<br />
<br />
I think Judith Murray was writing as a man because women generally did not publish their work. In "The Study of Margaretta" she talks about educating women. I am all for that especially the languages and actual education outside being a house wife. I was a little annoyed that it was assumed she would be conceited because of her education. Her parents had to cultivate a good woman and had to watch out that she would not become conceited in her superior knowledge. Educations does not equate to being conceited.It also annoyed me that they were talking about her virtues and how basically she was the perfect woman. She should not be eager for other people admiration's. Who would even think about that? It almost seemed to me that Margaretta should not want people to be envious but people should because she is such a good woman. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" by Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
The change in childbirth from 1760 to 1825 was dramatic and changed the medical field forever. I found the inclusion of men into the field of childbirth as early as the 1750s with Dr. William Shippen Jr. suprising. But I do agree that it led to childbirth becoming more of a private matter rather than one that involved society. The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the exclusion of women in childbirth. Men believed women could no longer be midwives due to their lack of understanding "throughly the profession of medicine as a whole." But men chose to leave out that women were not allowed to attend medical school thus losing any status they had in society when men overtook the practice of childbirth. I do wonder if labor became more private due to women being embarassed with having a male physician or due to husbands threatening doctors if they looked at their wives? To answer my own question I think it became a private matter due to embarassment of a man other than their husband participating in the intimate activity of childbirth. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
On page 79 of the piece by Catherine Scholten what stood out for me was the section where Scholten argued that birth became increasingly regarded as a medical problem to be managed by physicians. This is a complete 180 from the women in the colonial period of the 17th centuries that were expected to have as many children as possible until their death. This is a crucial turning point, from childbirth being celebrated to childbirth being a medical problem. This goes to show that what are considered norms are only a function of society at that particular time. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found this piece interesting because the one thing women had some control over and dominated was then being transferred to men. All because physician were men during that time. This piece raises many questions in my mind. You have trained midwives and fill in midwives. Then you have women in suburban areas where midwives delivered most of the babies because there was no doctor around. In urban areas, there was doctor available if there were any problems arose during childbirth. Then there was the problem of women being concerned with the presence of a "man" looking at a woman in this "delicate" way. Another point, it that when you have a midwife with years of a experience delivering babies and a man who is "medically trained" with little experience, what would you feel most comfortable with? There was a large transition here from women to men in childbirth. During this time, you had women being more educated and they may have felt they had more choices. In making these choices do they oust other women out of the arena? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I did not know how much birth used to be a "spectator's sport". All these women standing around trying to soothe the woman who is giving birth and going through extreme amounts of pain. I guess I understand that a joke might ease the mood, but I am personally glad men stepped into the picture. I think it would be a little awkward having people stand around even if they were all females. Most of the time, the midwives were not even trained that well. I like the idea of having a doctor who is medically trained and knows what he is doing involved in the process of birth.I thought it was a little comical how prude people were and did not want the male physician to look at the female as much as possible. No wonder "things" got cut off on occasion. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I feel that the idea of men taking over midwife positions was an infringement to women's rights. As midwives, women had a responsibility, and a respectable one at that. Many women worked within their own homes, but these midwives were in the business of helping women outside of their own homes. When male physicians entered the scene, female midwives slowly lost their jobs. At the time, I believe female midwives would have been better than male physicians because the midwives understood the female body, and could sympathize with the women they helped. Also, Scholten talks about how the male physicians could not even look at specific parts of the woman's body... I'm sure that made giving birth even more unsafe than it already was. It just seemed contradictory because people believed that male physicians made childbirth safer because they knew more about medicine and had pain relief, etc, yet they were constrained in their duties by social norms, which sometimes put the woman or baby in danger.I also thought it was interesting how the women supported one another in child birth. It goes back to the idea of women forming bonds with one another through similar experiences, and childbirth was definitely one of those bonding experiences among women, especially how they would take up the pregnant woman's chores and would give moral support. --- Alex Mankarios</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-30T23:57:08Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 ==<br />
<br />
So, this novel was the most popular in America for almost ''sixty years''? Wow. This one's a real bodice ripper, folks. Here we have the 18th century version of the Harlequin novel and a good plot for a Lifetime Original Movie. I would almost call it the worst thing I’ve ever read that's been published, except it was so entertaining. However, I don’t think I was entertained in the same way that 18th century women were (and I very much hope that it was mostly women reading this). I thought it was interesting how the preface says the novel is based on a true story, but the people involved are all dead and the names are changed, and, of course, the “Tale of Truth” bit in the title. Well, it’s nice to know people have been using ''that'' one for so long. Apparently, this book was replaced in popularity by ''Uncle Tom’s Cabin'', so it’s interesting that women seem to have a lot of success with novels in America. Does it have to do with the audience, which I presume is more often women than men? In the case of ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'', I imagine part of the reason it was successful was because it was so controversial. Was ''Charlotte'' considered controversial in it's time? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This was such I great read I have to comment it on it more! So, what have I learned from this exceptional piece of literature? Do not under any circumstances disobey your parents or you will live a horrible life and then die (God might forgive you though, if you're repentant). If you do promise yourself to a man at the disapproval of your parents, don’t go back on your word or the once dashing officer will turn into Snidely Whiplash and kidnap you to another country, take advantage of you (but it’s not rape if you enjoy it), neglect you, and leave you pregnant and in poverty, and it will be all YOUR fault, because YOU forced him to take action due to your indecisiveness even if he’s the one that manipulated you into agreeing to be with him in the first place. Isn’t it so great that women can be just as and sometimes even more misogynistic than men? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Taylor's comments after reading this piece I was reminded of a modern day soap opera, filled with betrayal, love/lust, and desertion of a husband to take care of the children. I have to ask though how many women of the eighteenth century read this novel, and much less were literate? For a novel that was popular for 60 years I assume it did well, but I do think "Charlotte" was typical of women at the time. She went from the supervision of her father to a world run by her husband and was confined to the home. How did women feel about the novel? Did they agree their lives followed ideals of romance? And child rearing? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This document did a good job of keeping me entertained and interested. I probably would have been one of many who read this book during the time. Charlotte's character annoyed me a little. At first I wanted her to be with the man, but then when she started saying how she did not want to dishonor her family and respected them too much to leave, I thought those were good points also. One minute she's on her way to tell him she is not going with him and the next thing you know he is picking her up and putting her in the carriage to take her away. Were men in reality really this suave and cunning to be able to change a women's mind so quickly? She seemed to be determined and knew what she wanted but she sure threw that out the window. It's cool to see how a situation like this can also be seen today in modern times, when men are able to work their charm to capture womens' hearts. The endings can be quite sad sometimes, however. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I feel like Susanna Haswell Rowson was attempting to get a point across through this story. I feel she was trying to warn girls about what might happen if they were to decide to step out of the bounds of socially acceptable behavior. She portrayed Charlotte as a young woman who was very protected in her world, but it was a world that was aligned with the idea of women at the time. She went to boarding school, and was very proper. Then she met a boy and deserted her family, which at the time I'm sure was frowned upon greatly, and ran away with him. While it seemed romantic that she followed her heart, Rowson instantaneously portrays Charlotte as unhappy with her current life with Montraville. She regretted her decision especially when she became ill and was without Montraville. I feel Rowson displayed Charlotte in this way to show her readers/fans how easy it was for a woman to become blinded by love, how easy it was to throw away all social responsibility, and how it would end up in a disappointing life. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I really did not like how she said her no one would censure her because the story was she is a moral woman and her story promoted good morals. Why does she feel the need to tell us that. Then she talks to the mothers who are reading her work not to worry again as if her work was raunchy. Her story was ridiculous. Charlotte was annoying, always crying and waiting for a man who does not love her. Then she dies as soon as her parents find her. The moral of the story is to obey your parents or you will be the most miserable person in the world and then you will die. I guess its nice that she was trying to warn girls about loving the wrong man but the story was melodramatic. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” ==<br />
<br />
In the piece by Judith Murray, “The Story of Margaretta,” In the introduction it states, “The maze of gender identities created as the views of a girl and a women are filtered through the perspective of a man, who is himself a fictional creation of a woman, adds another layer of meaning to the story.” So in reading this piece, I kept this layer of meaning in mind. I had a hard time reading some sections were blurred out. However, it seemed to me that the male view of Margaretta and her intelligence and education was positive. I am sure this probably wasn’t the overarching view that most males would have had at the time, so I am curious if this would have any impact on the readers at the time. What was Judith Murray going for? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
In "The Story of Margaretta," I am not sure if she is writing through the eyes of a man because she thinks it would be read by more people or her agenda was to show Mr. Vigillius view on educating women in hopes that it would have changed things for women. In the story, a reference was made about Mary not being concerned with a women's dress though she was still a "complete housewife," showed that it was more important for Margaretta to be taught things that made her more intellectual. I think this made her more the exception. Mary had an extensive plan for Margaretta's education. Her education went outside the realm of housewifery duties which Mr. Vigillius stated Margaretta did with proficiency. Mr. Vigillius was not fond of Mary's education plans for Margaretta but he let the matter go. Through Mr Vigillius eyes, he thought in the long run Margaretta will be more intellectual for the education she received, after all a woman was to "inform the future man." I think Mr. Vigillius was also an exception because he admitted that in the long run Margaretta's extensive education would make her life more distinguished. -Marsha H<br />
<br />
== "On the Importance of the Obstetrick Art" by Catherine Scholten ==<br />
<br />
The change in childbirth from 1760 to 1825 was dramatic and changed the medical field forever. I found the inclusion of men into the field of childbirth as early as the 1750s with Dr. William Shippen Jr. suprising. But I do agree that it led to childbirth becoming more of a private matter rather than one that involved society. The portion of the reading that stood out to me was the exclusion of women in childbirth. Men believed women could no longer be midwives due to their lack of understanding "throughly the profession of medicine as a whole." But men chose to leave out that women were not allowed to attend medical school thus losing any status they had in society when men overtook the practice of childbirth. I do wonder if labor became more private due to women being embarassed with having a male physician or due to husbands threatening doctors if they looked at their wives? To answer my own question I think it became a private matter due to embarassment of a man other than their husband participating in the intimate activity of childbirth. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
On page 79 of the piece by Catherine Scholten what stood out for me was the section where Scholten argued that birth became increasingly regarded as a medical problem to be managed by physicians. This is a complete 180 from the women in the colonial period of the 17th centuries that were expected to have as many children as possible until their death. This is a crucial turning point, from childbirth being celebrated to childbirth being a medical problem. This goes to show that what are considered norms are only a function of society at that particular time. -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I found this piece interesting because the one thing women had some control over and dominated was then being transferred to men. All because physician were men during that time. This piece raises many questions in my mind. You have trained midwives and fill in midwives. Then you have women in suburban areas where midwives delivered most of the babies because there was no doctor around. In urban areas, there was doctor available if there were any problems arose during childbirth. Then there was the problem of women being concerned with the presence of a "man" looking at a woman in this "delicate" way. Another point, it that when you have a midwife with years of a experience delivering babies and a man who is "medically trained" with little experience, what would you feel most comfortable with? There was a large transition here from women to men in childbirth. During this time, you had women being more educated and they may have felt they had more choices. In making these choices do they oust other women out of the arena? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I did not know how much birth used to be a "spectator's sport". All these women standing around trying to soothe the woman who is giving birth and going through extreme amounts of pain. I guess I understand that a joke might ease the mood, but I am personally glad men stepped into the picture. I think it would be a little awkward having people stand around even if they were all females. Most of the time, the midwives were not even trained that well. I like the idea of having a doctor who is medically trained and knows what he is doing involved in the process of birth.I thought it was a little comical how prude people were and did not want the male physician to look at the female as much as possible. No wonder "things" got cut off on occasion. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I feel that the idea of men taking over midwife positions was an infringement to women's rights. As midwives, women had a responsibility, and a respectable one at that. Many women worked within their own homes, but these midwives were in the business of helping women outside of their own homes. When male physicians entered the scene, female midwives slowly lost their jobs. At the time, I believe female midwives would have been better than male physicians because the midwives understood the female body, and could sympathize with the women they helped. Also, Scholten talks about how the male physicians could not even look at specific parts of the woman's body... I'm sure that made giving birth even more unsafe than it already was. It just seemed contradictory because people believed that male physicians made childbirth safer because they knew more about medicine and had pain relief, etc, yet they were constrained in their duties by social norms, which sometimes put the woman or baby in danger.I also thought it was interesting how the women supported one another in child birth. It goes back to the idea of women forming bonds with one another through similar experiences, and childbirth was definitely one of those bonding experiences among women, especially how they would take up the pregnant woman's chores and would give moral support. --- Alex Mankarios</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-24T01:39:29Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
I think Phillis Wheatley had an extremely rare story. She was a slave who was taught by her owners to read and write, she was sent to Europe to publish her poems and was freed upon her return. What is more rare is that Phillis was not only literate but aware of the politics of the time, as shown in her address to George III. As a slave who was owned I wonder what parallels she drew between that and the colonies that were owned by England. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do like Phillis Wheatley's story. I'm sure it was very rare to even have such education and praise, and to be sent to England to publish poetry for a white woman, so for a slave to achieve such heights is quite remarkable. I also find the subject of her poem rather shocking, seeing as how she is/was a slave. To speak out against the king (or anyone) for that matter and be black AND a woman must have taken real courage. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Eliza Wilkinson, Carolina Patriot, 1782 ==<br />
This reading was very interesting. I felt that Eliza painted the British in a very harsh light (which I know was the point), but she just seemed like a bit of a hypocrite. One sentence really caught my eye: "The Americans are obliged to commit unavoidable acts of cruelty; the defense of their country requires it; you seek their lives and liberties, and they must either kill or be killed." So, its ok for the Americans can be mean and cruel, but if the English are then that’s ten times worse? Also in this reading, Eliza tells a bit of a story some man told her about someone, (I'm assuming the someone is an analogy for the British and his farm is an analogy for the Americans), encroaching on his farm taking more and more from him. And, at the end he asks, "is this not slavery?" Now that is pretty ridiculous because as a North Carolina planter, I'm sure he had slaves, or at the very least, neighbors who had slaves. So, as long as the Americans are not treated like slaves, then it is fine, but they can still have slaves of their own.<br />
One more sentence in this reading really caught my eye, When Eliza is talking about Homer and she says, "what contemptible EARTH WORMS these authors make us!" She is expressing her displeasure over not even having the liberty to think, and she says that that is all she wants. She writes of how the men would not want women to be a part of political matters, and she does not care. She wishes only to think for herself. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
The Revolution seems to mark a period where women can start voicing political opinions without being attacked for it. Eliza Wilkinson, at least in her letters, claimed the right to express her political sentiments and rages about how authors make women out to be weak and fit for nothing more than menial tasks, or in more visceral language, appearing as “contemptible ''earth worms'' (124).” Interestingly, she apparently had political discussions not just with her female friends, but with males as well. She talks about a conversation with a Patriot officer. Whether or not he took her opinions seriously, I don’t know, but the fact that he was willing to talk with her about politics suggests a change in attitude from earlier colonial times. Of course, Eliza is an elite with a fair amount of power, giving her the opportunity and station to speak up. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is rather bloodthirsty when she talks about how it is acceptable for "Americans" to be cruel to the enemy. I think it is funny how she talks about how everyone is equal but Americans are at the same time superior. I did like how she said that men should not restrict a woman's right to think for herself. I liked her patriotism and the fact that she spoke her mind about what she thought of the revolution despite the fact that women are not supposed to think about such things. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
I thought it was rather interesting that Grace Galloway "resented the intrusion of politics into her personal life." I feel like this may be the reason why it took women so long to start getting involved in "men's affairs" because many women, like Grace, did not care for it. They would rather just be housewives and be content with that. -Kristina.S. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
I love this letter. When Abigail wrote this letter to her husband she hoped that he would include women in the new code of laws. She wasn't afraid to say that if they were not recognized they would rebel. He laughed at her request for women to be included in those laws. She even wrote to her friend Mercy Warren, trying to get a petition going of their greviances. An interesting point was when Abigail wrote back to her husband and said, "we have it in our power not only to free ouselves but to subdue our masters." She was telling him that women had a lot more power than men realize. By the power of persuation and a woman's wit and charm, women could get their masters to submit to whatever they wanted. Abigail was very "saucy" and is not afraid to tell her husband what she thinks and admits she will fight against laws that have no representation for women. I like that Abigail saw this as a golden opportunity for women to seek out more liberties and express themselves in this new government these men were creating. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I particularly like how John writes, "But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented." I have the feeling that he is kind of mocking her by saying that this is the first he has ever heard of women being discontented with their social status. But, what he says about women being the biggest "tribe" of them all is correct because if all the women decided to ban together under one common goal, they could deny the men everything until they got what they wanted. This is unrealistic, though, because to make it effective, most if not all women would have to have a common goal to reform, and (especially at that time), it appears that not all women cared enough to have a political say in things, etc. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
So, Abigail Adams is pretty much awesome, right? In these letters we’ve got her threatening to start a rebellion if the ladies are ignored. Obviously, she is joking to a certain extent, but her use of the patriot’s rhetoric is interesting: “we will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation (128).” Sounds familiar, but John Adams conveniently ignores her fair points, though he does pay the ladies a “compliment” about how their “Tribe is more numerous and powerful than all the rest.” He throws back a few snappy one-liners and shows he can use hot button words too, particularly about “the Despotism of the Peticoat.” Still, Abigail gets the best line: “That your sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit no dispute.” It seems that though it is acceptable for women to have political sentiment, it doesn’t mean men will necessarily take it seriously. How surprising. I’m sure Abigail was quite objectionable to that dismissal and quite loud about it too. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Adams household! I'll bring the popcorn! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I didn’t realize Abigail Adams was such a strong women. In her correspondence to her husband, John Adams, she was determined that he “remember the ladies.” She argues that if attention is not paid to the ladies that they will foment a rebellion and not hold themselves bound by any laws in which they have no voice, or representation. This is an extremely strong stance to take and one for which I doubt many women could take. I am curious of how much leeway Abigail Adams had based on who she was and who she was married to, if a unknown poor colonial women had been so outward about her rights, what would have happened? At the same time, Abigail Adams had a great deal of power in her household when her husband was away, that had to have impacted her views as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Erin makes a really good point- I also wonder if Abigail's courage to voice her opinion and strength of character is a result of her social standing and also the fact that John was away from home for periods of time. I wonder if this is an example of the male head of household (in this case, John) giving his wife more liberty to run the farm (or plantation, maybe)while he was away, similar to what we talked about in class? I really also like Abigail as a person, and I think her marriage to John is very interesting, as revealed in the letters. I wonder how typical their marriage was of the period? They both seem to respect each other quite a bit, while not being afraid to be humourous or candid in their own individual opinions. One of my favorite lines is when John states, in response to Abigail's request that he "Remember the Ladies", "But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.- This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out." Abigail seems to be a very determined and energetic woman- I think it would have been really neat and interesting to have known her. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
As much as this correspondence speaks to Abigail's "sauciness," I think it paints an interesting portrait of their relationship. They seem to have a very clever, teasing tone with one another. This sort of correspondence really seems to fit in with the archetypal perception of the era, with everyone feeling empowered by new freedoms, but I wonder how typical the Adamses were in the colonies. Did everyone read the line about the "first intimation that another Tribe..." as being sort of jokingly mocking? -- erin b<br />
<br />
Just wanted to say, I love Abigial Adams. Imagine if every woman of the time had her education, relationship with John, it'd be amazing. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Benjamin Rush considered a sound female education to be a "domestic education". He believed women needed to be "trained to manage efficient households, and as mothers, they had to raise virtuous citizens." (Woloch, 130) When he used the word "trained", he seemed to be implying that someone else would train women in their duties, meaning the men would. I found it ironic that Rush said, "It becomes us [the men] therefore to prepare them [women], by a suitable education, for the discharge of this most important duty of mothers." (Woloch, 131) What makes men so qualified to teach women how to do domestic and motherly duties, when they have no idea what those duties entail? Rush and other men felt it was their obligation to teach women to do jobs they were already doing. I also felt as though Rush assumed women could not do any of the jobs/talents he listed, such as learning the English language, or bookkeeping. I have a feeling that Rush and other men were under the impression that motherly and domestic duties were simple to understand and easy to do, yet I think Rush had never heard the saying "easier said than done." ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush directed his argument and his speech to the "Gentlemen" in the audience, even though he was discussing female education and what he thought should be done or corrected in the present education systems in order to better prepare women for their roles as wives and mothers. I think this is evidence that the men were still thought to be "responsible" for their wives and daughters- society at this time still seems to be very much a patriarchal one by reading what Benjamin Rush has to say. I suppose it will still be a while (perhaps not until the early-to-mid 19th Century would be my guess, when you have a lot of reform movements, among them education reforms)before women have more of a "voice" in their own education. Here, the females seem to play a "secondary role" to that of the Gentlemen, even though they are the ones receiving the education. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Judith Sargent Murray, 1790, “on the Equality of the Sexes” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 ==<br />
Both Taylor and Duffin’s report and Daniel Claus’s assessment indicate that the British viewed Molly Brant as a vital political connection as she represented British interests to Native Americans. As seen in Taylor and Duffin’s report, the fact that the British gave Molly Brant all the money she wanted shows their high opinion of her. Brant was also powerful within Native American communities. She persuaded a fickle chief to reaffirm his alliance to the British. Molly must have been a very intelligent woman to command the respect of both English and Native American leaders. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
I admire women during the American Revolution because they took this opportunity to try to change things for themselves. I think their experiences made them stronger and gave them a stronger sense of who they were outside of the home. They were not afraid to speak out. They knew the purpose of this war and supported their families - even if that meant throwing themselves into harm's way. Esther Deberdt Reed did not want women to go unnoticed for their bravery in this war. She doesn's take away the bravery of men but men were the ones who were looked at as "the hero." She said it beautifully when she wrote, "we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I loved how Esther DeBerdt Reed spoke so strongly and patriotically. She believed that women could be as patriotic as men, even if they were not doing the same duties in the war. I agree with what Marsha about what Reed wrote about "surpass[ing] them in our love for the public good." She believed that through strong patriotism and support for the country, the women could be active participants in the war, since they were not allowed to fight or take part in other areas of the war effort. She believed the men needed to know that the women were offering their help in any way possible. At the end of her writing, she writes, "Receive with a free hand our offering, the purest which can be presented to your virtue." Although the women could not participate as much as they may have liked, they were still more than willing to support the men who were fighting for them, in any and all ways possible. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women's roles during the Revolutionary War. At a time when women were still seen as only belonging in the home, she followed her husband and the army throughout the colonies. She performed domestic duties such as cleaning, mending clothing, and cooking for soldiers but was also seen as a member of the army. The point I found most interesting was at the surrender in Yorktown when Sarah thought something bad had occurred, asked a question and recieved the reply, "Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?" I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, "mans world". Sarah Osborn broke traditional ideas of womens work in the eighteenth century and was able to see first hand the building of America. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
I liked the article that featured Mary Jemison's views on the Revolution. The was in depth and described the actions of the Iroquois Indians in detail. I could tell that she accepted the Indians as her people when she said "my Indian brother", and when she said "...'''we''' sustained no loss in the war..." She felt she was a part of the tribe and they were her family. She describes how some Indians decided to go against the treaty that was made with the colonists to help the British fight. She describes many battles that were fought, and how ultimately many of her people suffered. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison's view of the Revolution was really interesting especially since she shares the Indian perspective of the war. She points out how they broke their treaty with one side because the British told them the rebels would be beaten easily and gave them gifts. Mary basically implied that the Indians were bought with gifts to fight for the British. She states the Indians were "hired to commit depredations upon the whites, who had given them no offense. She does not seem to agree with the decision to fight for the British. She does accept the Iroquois as her people even if she does not agree with the things they do.- LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
As a modern reader, I found Thomas Paine’s essay very condescending. I also had difficulty locating the rights Thomas Paine admitted that women possessed, as indicated by the title. Paine spent most of the essay pitying women: “Cruel distempers attack their beauty- and the hour, which confirms their release from those, is perhaps the most melancholy of their lives. It robs them of the most essential characteristic of their sex (288).” This article did not acclaim a woman’s older years as a time of potentially more social respect and authority; instead Paine asserted that older women were very depressed because they lost their beauty. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
<br />
This passage while short in length summed up womens rights effectively stating women were stronger patriots then men. The writer is asking for equality even though women "[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." Women surpassed men in their love for country and fight for freedom by willingly allowing their sons and husbands to fight and maybe die for their country. Did all women feel the same as this writer that they were willing to give up vain items (hair accessories) at the end of the Revolution just as they were able to stop drinking tea at the start of the Revolution? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the opinions of this woman who was defending her rights. She had good points to make including mentioning famous heroines and when she said "...women have been seen forgetting the weakness of their sex, building new walls.." She is describing how women are strong and not only take on the burdens and stress of being a female and living day to day but also taking care of their families and those around them. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_5_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 5 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-24T01:31:21Z<p>Ltaggart: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Comparative questions or comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Phillis Wheatley, 1768, An address to George III ==<br />
<br />
I think Phillis Wheatley had an extremely rare story. She was a slave who was taught by her owners to read and write, she was sent to Europe to publish her poems and was freed upon her return. What is more rare is that Phillis was not only literate but aware of the politics of the time, as shown in her address to George III. As a slave who was owned I wonder what parallels she drew between that and the colonies that were owned by England. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I do like Phillis Wheatley's story. I'm sure it was very rare to even have such education and praise, and to be sent to England to publish poetry for a white woman, so for a slave to achieve such heights is quite remarkable. I also find the subject of her poem rather shocking, seeing as how she is/was a slave. To speak out against the king (or anyone) for that matter and be black AND a woman must have taken real courage. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Eliza Wilkinson, Carolina Patriot, 1782 ==<br />
This reading was very interesting. I felt that Eliza painted the British in a very harsh light (which I know was the point), but she just seemed like a bit of a hypocrite. One sentence really caught my eye: "The Americans are obliged to commit unavoidable acts of cruelty; the defense of their country requires it; you seek their lives and liberties, and they must either kill or be killed." So, its ok for the Americans can be mean and cruel, but if the English are then that’s ten times worse? Also in this reading, Eliza tells a bit of a story some man told her about someone, (I'm assuming the someone is an analogy for the British and his farm is an analogy for the Americans), encroaching on his farm taking more and more from him. And, at the end he asks, "is this not slavery?" Now that is pretty ridiculous because as a North Carolina planter, I'm sure he had slaves, or at the very least, neighbors who had slaves. So, as long as the Americans are not treated like slaves, then it is fine, but they can still have slaves of their own.<br />
One more sentence in this reading really caught my eye, When Eliza is talking about Homer and she says, "what contemptible EARTH WORMS these authors make us!" She is expressing her displeasure over not even having the liberty to think, and she says that that is all she wants. She writes of how the men would not want women to be a part of political matters, and she does not care. She wishes only to think for herself. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
The Revolution seems to mark a period where women can start voicing political opinions without being attacked for it. Eliza Wilkinson, at least in her letters, claimed the right to express her political sentiments and rages about how authors make women out to be weak and fit for nothing more than menial tasks, or in more visceral language, appearing as “contemptible ''earth worms'' (124).” Interestingly, she apparently had political discussions not just with her female friends, but with males as well. She talks about a conversation with a Patriot officer. Whether or not he took her opinions seriously, I don’t know, but the fact that he was willing to talk with her about politics suggests a change in attitude from earlier colonial times. Of course, Eliza is an elite with a fair amount of power, giving her the opportunity and station to speak up. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Eliza Wilkinson is rather bloodthirsty when she talks about how it is acceptable for "Americans" to be cruel to the enemy. I think it is funny how she talks about how everyone is equal but Americans are at the same time superior. I did like how she said that men should not restrict a woman's right to think for herself. I liked her patriotism and the fact that she spoke her mind about what she thought of the revolution despite the fact that women are not supposed to think about such things. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Grace Galloway’s diary, 1778-79, Philadelphia ==<br />
I thought it was rather interesting that Grace Galloway "resented the intrusion of politics into her personal life." I feel like this may be the reason why it took women so long to start getting involved in "men's affairs" because many women, like Grace, did not care for it. They would rather just be housewives and be content with that. -Kristina.S. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Abigail Adams, Remember the Ladies, 1776 ==<br />
I love this letter. When Abigail wrote this letter to her husband she hoped that he would include women in the new code of laws. She wasn't afraid to say that if they were not recognized they would rebel. He laughed at her request for women to be included in those laws. She even wrote to her friend Mercy Warren, trying to get a petition going of their greviances. An interesting point was when Abigail wrote back to her husband and said, "we have it in our power not only to free ouselves but to subdue our masters." She was telling him that women had a lot more power than men realize. By the power of persuation and a woman's wit and charm, women could get their masters to submit to whatever they wanted. Abigail was very "saucy" and is not afraid to tell her husband what she thinks and admits she will fight against laws that have no representation for women. I like that Abigail saw this as a golden opportunity for women to seek out more liberties and express themselves in this new government these men were creating. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I particularly like how John writes, "But your letter was the first intimation that another tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented." I have the feeling that he is kind of mocking her by saying that this is the first he has ever heard of women being discontented with their social status. But, what he says about women being the biggest "tribe" of them all is correct because if all the women decided to ban together under one common goal, they could deny the men everything until they got what they wanted. This is unrealistic, though, because to make it effective, most if not all women would have to have a common goal to reform, and (especially at that time), it appears that not all women cared enough to have a political say in things, etc. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
So, Abigail Adams is pretty much awesome, right? In these letters we’ve got her threatening to start a rebellion if the ladies are ignored. Obviously, she is joking to a certain extent, but her use of the patriot’s rhetoric is interesting: “we will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation (128).” Sounds familiar, but John Adams conveniently ignores her fair points, though he does pay the ladies a “compliment” about how their “Tribe is more numerous and powerful than all the rest.” He throws back a few snappy one-liners and shows he can use hot button words too, particularly about “the Despotism of the Peticoat.” Still, Abigail gets the best line: “That your sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit no dispute.” It seems that though it is acceptable for women to have political sentiment, it doesn’t mean men will necessarily take it seriously. How surprising. I’m sure Abigail was quite objectionable to that dismissal and quite loud about it too. Oh, to be a fly on the wall in the Adams household! I'll bring the popcorn! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I didn’t realize Abigail Adams was such a strong women. In her correspondence to her husband, John Adams, she was determined that he “remember the ladies.” She argues that if attention is not paid to the ladies that they will foment a rebellion and not hold themselves bound by any laws in which they have no voice, or representation. This is an extremely strong stance to take and one for which I doubt many women could take. I am curious of how much leeway Abigail Adams had based on who she was and who she was married to, if a unknown poor colonial women had been so outward about her rights, what would have happened? At the same time, Abigail Adams had a great deal of power in her household when her husband was away, that had to have impacted her views as well. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I think Erin makes a really good point- I also wonder if Abigail's courage to voice her opinion and strength of character is a result of her social standing and also the fact that John was away from home for periods of time. I wonder if this is an example of the male head of household (in this case, John) giving his wife more liberty to run the farm (or plantation, maybe)while he was away, similar to what we talked about in class? I really also like Abigail as a person, and I think her marriage to John is very interesting, as revealed in the letters. I wonder how typical their marriage was of the period? They both seem to respect each other quite a bit, while not being afraid to be humourous or candid in their own individual opinions. One of my favorite lines is when John states, in response to Abigail's request that he "Remember the Ladies", "But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful than all the rest were grown discontented.- This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out." Abigail seems to be a very determined and energetic woman- I think it would have been really neat and interesting to have known her. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
As much as this correspondence speaks to Abigail's "sauciness," I think it paints an interesting portrait of their relationship. They seem to have a very clever, teasing tone with one another. This sort of correspondence really seems to fit in with the archetypal perception of the era, with everyone feeling empowered by new freedoms, but I wonder how typical the Adamses were in the colonies. Did everyone read the line about the "first intimation that another Tribe..." as being sort of jokingly mocking? -- erin b<br />
<br />
Just wanted to say, I love Abigial Adams. Imagine if every woman of the time had her education, relationship with John, it'd be amazing. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Rush, “Thoughts upon female education,” 1787 (Philadelphia) ==<br />
<br />
I found it interesting how Benjamin Rush considered a sound female education to be a "domestic education". He believed women needed to be "trained to manage efficient households, and as mothers, they had to raise virtuous citizens." (Woloch, 130) When he used the word "trained", he seemed to be implying that someone else would train women in their duties, meaning the men would. I found it ironic that Rush said, "It becomes us [the men] therefore to prepare them [women], by a suitable education, for the discharge of this most important duty of mothers." (Woloch, 131) What makes men so qualified to teach women how to do domestic and motherly duties, when they have no idea what those duties entail? Rush and other men felt it was their obligation to teach women to do jobs they were already doing. I also felt as though Rush assumed women could not do any of the jobs/talents he listed, such as learning the English language, or bookkeeping. I have a feeling that Rush and other men were under the impression that motherly and domestic duties were simple to understand and easy to do, yet I think Rush had never heard the saying "easier said than done." ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Benjamin Rush directed his argument and his speech to the "Gentlemen" in the audience, even though he was discussing female education and what he thought should be done or corrected in the present education systems in order to better prepare women for their roles as wives and mothers. I think this is evidence that the men were still thought to be "responsible" for their wives and daughters- society at this time still seems to be very much a patriarchal one by reading what Benjamin Rush has to say. I suppose it will still be a while (perhaps not until the early-to-mid 19th Century would be my guess, when you have a lot of reform movements, among them education reforms)before women have more of a "voice" in their own education. Here, the females seem to play a "secondary role" to that of the Gentlemen, even though they are the ones receiving the education. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Judith Sargent Murray, 1790, “on the Equality of the Sexes” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Taylor & Duffin Report Molly Brant's Opinions and Influence, 1778 ==<br />
Both Taylor and Duffin’s report and Daniel Claus’s assessment indicate that the British viewed Molly Brant as a vital political connection as she represented British interests to Native Americans. As seen in Taylor and Duffin’s report, the fact that the British gave Molly Brant all the money she wanted shows their high opinion of her. Brant was also powerful within Native American communities. She persuaded a fickle chief to reaffirm his alliance to the British. Molly must have been a very intelligent woman to command the respect of both English and Native American leaders. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Daniel Claus assesses Molly Brant's Influence, 1779 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Esther DeBerdt Reed, “Sentiments of an American Woman,” 1780 ==<br />
I admire women during the American Revolution because they took this opportunity to try to change things for themselves. I think their experiences made them stronger and gave them a stronger sense of who they were outside of the home. They were not afraid to speak out. They knew the purpose of this war and supported their families - even if that meant throwing themselves into harm's way. Esther Deberdt Reed did not want women to go unnoticed for their bravery in this war. She doesn's take away the bravery of men but men were the ones who were looked at as "the hero." She said it beautifully when she wrote, "we should at least equal, and sometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
I loved how Esther DeBerdt Reed spoke so strongly and patriotically. She believed that women could be as patriotic as men, even if they were not doing the same duties in the war. I agree with what Marsha about what Reed wrote about "surpass[ing] them in our love for the public good." She believed that through strong patriotism and support for the country, the women could be active participants in the war, since they were not allowed to fight or take part in other areas of the war effort. She believed the men needed to know that the women were offering their help in any way possible. At the end of her writing, she writes, "Receive with a free hand our offering, the purest which can be presented to your virtue." Although the women could not participate as much as they may have liked, they were still more than willing to support the men who were fighting for them, in any and all ways possible. ---- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Thomas Jefferson’s Slaves Join the British, 1781 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Sarah Osborn, Camp Follower, Recalls the Revolution, 1837 ==<br />
I found the writings from Sarah Osborn effective in studying women's roles during the Revolutionary War. At a time when women were still seen as only belonging in the home, she followed her husband and the army throughout the colonies. She performed domestic duties such as cleaning, mending clothing, and cooking for soldiers but was also seen as a member of the army. The point I found most interesting was at the surrender in Yorktown when Sarah thought something bad had occurred, asked a question and recieved the reply, "Are not you soldier enough to know what it means?" I found this to mean the soldiers treated her as an equal and should know the rules of the army, "mans world". Sarah Osborn broke traditional ideas of womens work in the eighteenth century and was able to see first hand the building of America. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Jemison Views the Revolution ==<br />
I liked the article that featured Mary Jemison's views on the Revolution. The was in depth and described the actions of the Iroquois Indians in detail. I could tell that she accepted the Indians as her people when she said "my Indian brother", and when she said "...'''we''' sustained no loss in the war..." She felt she was a part of the tribe and they were her family. She describes how some Indians decided to go against the treaty that was made with the colonists to help the British fight. She describes many battles that were fought, and how ultimately many of her people suffered. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Thomas Paine in 1775, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 288-289 ==<br />
As a modern reader, I found Thomas Paine’s essay very condescending. I also had difficulty locating the rights Thomas Paine admitted that women possessed, as indicated by the title. Paine spent most of the essay pitying women: “Cruel distempers attack their beauty- and the hour, which confirms their release from those, is perhaps the most melancholy of their lives. It robs them of the most essential characteristic of their sex (288).” This article did not acclaim a woman’s older years as a time of potentially more social respect and authority; instead Paine asserted that older women were very depressed because they lost their beauty. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== An Anonymous Woman Claims Women's Rights in 1780, from Major Problems in the Era of the American Revolution, 293-294 ==<br />
<br />
This passage while short in length summed up womens rights effectively stating women were stronger patriots then men. The writer is asking for equality even though women "[s]ometimes surpass them in our love for the public good." Women surpassed men in their love for country and fight for freedom by willingly allowing their sons and husbands to fight and maybe die for their country. Did all women feel the same as this writer that they were willing to give up vain items (hair accessories) at the end of the Revolution just as they were able to stop drinking tea at the start of the Revolution? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the opinions of this woman who was defending her rights. She had good points to make including mentioning famous heroines and when she said "...women have been seen forgetting the weakness of their sex, building new walls.." She is describing how women are strong and not only take on the burdens and stress of being a female and living day to day but also taking care of their families and those around them. -Amy Van Ness</div>Ltaggarthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-16T22:33:46Z<p>Ltaggart: /* Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-source questions/comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Anne Bradstreet, “A Spiritual Autobiography,” ~1670 ==<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson is now one of my top 10 favorite women in history. The overall summary of her trial is stated on page 103: she was charged with dishonoring the community fathers, of holding meetings at her home in a manner inappropriate to her sex, and of insulting ministers at a private conference by accusing them of laboring under a Covenant of Works. Anne Hutchinson then admits having a revelation where God told her that he would destroy her prosecutors. This was considered heresy. Anne was then sentenced to banishment from the jurisdiction. Overall, I just found the trial to be hilarious. Some of the accusations were such a stretch. I especially enjoyed the accusation that Anne broke the law of the fifth commandment, honoring your mother and father. It took me a minute to figure out that that they actually thought that this meant honoring the “fathers of the commonwealth” (seriously!? …Yes) the governor states on page 105, “if they be the fathers of the commonwealth, and they of another religion, if you entertain them then you dishonor your parents and are justly punishable.” …wow….<br />
I was also surprised at how blunt the puritan men were about the status of women. When Anne Hutchinson was being sentenced, the governor states: “Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you are banished from out of our jurisdiction as ''being a women not fit for our society''….” Harsh words. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I had one main question when reading the trial, I had no idea what a Covenant of Works was. I googled it, and I came up with this definition:<br />
<br />
The covenant of works is God's promise to Adam. In return for perfect obedience, he would merit God's reward. The reward in this covenant does not result from grace; rather, it is a debt owed to Adam for keeping his part of the covenant. Unfortunately, Adam failed to keep the covenant and "after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled" (Calvin). [[http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/novel_18c/defoe/puritanism.html#works]]<br />
<br />
However, I am still confused as to what Anne Hutchinson was being charged with. She was charged with accusing ministers of laboring under a Covenant of Works. What exactly does that mean? -- Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I was also confused about what that means. I know Dr. M said in class that she was charged with saying bad things about the ministers and going against the church so I'm guessing that is what that means. -- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
When I read Anne Bradstreet’s spiritual autobiography, I was amazed by the necessity of Puritans to deny their individual wants, needs, and rationale. Anne described joining the church as ‘submitting’. When Anne was sick, she said God was trying to humble her. Then once God finally granted Anne children, she began a new struggle to extinguish their individuality and worked “till Christ bee formed in you [her children].”(pg 100) Given this context, one can see that an individual thinking on his/her own, such as Anne Hutchinson, was very radical and seen as dangerous. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Anne Hutchinson’s trial, 1637 ==<br />
Regarding Anne Hutchinson's Trial<br />
I find it interesting that whenever the governor asks her a question that she rebukes it. In particular, when the governor asks her why she keeps a meeting at her house on a set day. She responds that is lawful for her to do so. Implying that she has not broken any law and then puts "unlawful act" in his lap by saying "can you find a warrant for yourself and condemn me for the same thing?" Meaning do you not have a religious meetings in your home. She is witty and clever with her words in proving her case. The governor seems to stumble to find fault towards her act of meeting. With each question the governor asked she has a rebuttal. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Anne Hutchinson’s transgressions seemed to take on a deeper significance to Puritan leaders because of her gender. Not only did she express a different, radical theology, she, a woman, preached this theology to men. When the court asked her if she taught men, Anne Hutchinson artfully replied that she was teaching the men of the court at that very moment. To these leaders, Anne Hutchinson threatened their religion and their patriarchal social order where women never had authority over men. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== Lancashire, England Women’s Meeting structure, Quaker women in 1675 ==<br />
The Quakers seemed to give equality more of a chance than Puritans. This document reiterates many common themes of female inferiority. Women were weaker and they needed to stay at home with their families. However, this epistle ends in a way that really strengthened women. The female authors of this document asserted that God could make the weak strong and even used a masculine, military analogy. Puritans would never refer to women as “valliant Souldiers of Jesus Christ” or arm them with “Armour of Light” and “the Sword of his Eternal Spirit.” (pg 113) -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
== David Brainerd, 1746, account of the Great Awakening ==<br />
<br />
A Remarkable Instance of Awakening-Woloch Reading<br />
The ideas ministers had during the Great Awakening seize to amaze me, as in David Brainerd's case he really did believe he was saving the young Indian woman. "This was indeed a suprising day of God's power, and seemed enough to convince an atheist of the truth, importance, and power of God's word." He believed her not being able to control herself nor speak to anyone was a sign that God had reached her and the Anglo way of life was coming forward in Native American culture. My question is did Native Americans really wish to conform? Or did they see it as a way to avoid confrontation, when they were now outnumbered by the settlers? But overall did ministers think they were reaching all the people they saw as "uncivilized"? -Megan W. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 ==<br />
<br />
I understand that it was a completely different time and that the Puritans and other early colonists believed in witchcraft. But, when I started reading this story it almost made me laugh. Mr. Atwaters had dreams about witches while his son was sick so that made him think that a witch made his son sick. It just seems so crazy to me. I was also surprised that Elizabeth could sue her neighbors for calling her a witch. I guess since this instance was before the 1692 witch trials in Salem Village, maybe it wasn't taken so seriously. Why do you think Elizabeth Godman's situation was different from the witch trials in Salem Village?--Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the claims against Elizabeth Godman along with the fact that she filed a lawsuit was interesting. Many of the people claiming she was a witch seemed to think that their pigs or chickens died because of her; because she was a witch. I thought that was comical. I liked the fact that she was able to sue them too. The time of the trial was before the Salem Witch trials so maybe that is why the claims did not have enough justification. I am sure if they were made in 1692 she would have lost the case. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Bridget Bishop convicted of witchcraft 1692; “Casco Girls” accuse George Burroughs, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
The Salem witch trials I could not help but wonder where they came up with the ridiculous accusations, pigs dying after a visit from a women equaled her being a witch, did any of the citizens ever consider alternatives? I think the magistrate felt they were given a power and to secure general security they would convict a woman for looking at a child the wrong way or muttering a prayer seen as an incantation. In the case of Bridget Bishop, I did wonder did she wish to be seen as a witch?Or did all of the offenses against her make the claim of her being a witch come true? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree that they really do jump to conclusions. It is like they think there could be no other possible reason why the pigs died. I think it goes back to what we talked about in class, that maybe the accusers were accusing people of witchcraft to show that they are holy. Because only the truly holy people could recognize evil? Religion is such a huge influence on the NE colonists. I think that cases like Bridget Bishop and George Burroughs show just how strong that influence was. --Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker, wealthy Philadelphia woman, diary – 1758-1794 ==<br />
<br />
I think Elizabeth Sandwith Drinker's diary entries really reflect the discrepancies between the experiences of different colonial women, as a result of race, social and class status, geographic location, etc. Elizabeth is described as a "wealthy Philadelphian", and thus I think her accounts and experiences differ dramatically from those of other women- not just women living in different regions or areas (i.e., the Southern colonies), but also in her own town. For example, Karin Wulf describes the "Hucksters" in Philadelphia who were "at the lower end of the scale" (p.101) and would purchase second-hand or damaged goods and then re-sell them on the city streets as a way to earn money. Conversely, Elizabeth describes the work that others are doing for her: "Phebe Morris here this Afternoon fitting a Gown for me...", "George Baker drove up Polly Campbell, whome I have hir'd this day to tind my little Henry...". She also describes the frequent comings-and-goings of different maids in her service. Her experiences are in stark contrast to the every-day experiences and lives of the female slaves on Landon Carter's Virginia plantation,whom he refers to as "sordid creatures" (p.83). Carter states, "I have ordered the wench to be tyed up and severely slashed to keep her care if possible; but I am afraid it will not be long enough remembered." (p.83) From these excerpts, the reader can safely conclude that Elizabeth was leading a very different life than those of African American female slaves. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
== Landon Carter complains about his female slaves (1771-1773) ==<br />
You can read throughout his complaints, he sees himself to be superior to them, calling them "absurd" and "lazy and careless." As he complains about how someone must be there when they are cutting down the tobacco or they will do it wrong. Is someone around to show his slaves how to properly do it or explain to them? I'm sure the complaints of slaves being in pain are legitimate and Landon Carter is just not sympathetic to their aches and pains. He disregards their complaints and treats them like work horses. He says they need a "good whipping" and that will make the pain go away as it cured Mrs. Dairy Mary's "invisible pain in her hip." Then eventually he admits that no matter what the punishment they still will not work well because they are negros. I think that during that time that negro slaves were looked at inferior to the white colonists but what was the degree of treatment of slaves? Was Landon Carter's assumption about negro slaves generally agreed upon or was he the exception? When I read George Washington Assigns Work to His Slaves, there wasn't any comments about slaves being mistreated. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
Landon Carter’s diary showed that he was frustrated with what he saw as the stupidity and laziness of his slaves. I think it is more likely that these slaves were engaged in a passive aggressive resistance to his authority. A slave woman such as Sicely, the cowkeeper, had very little control over her own life, but she could ruin her master’s day by allowing a cow to wander into a swamp. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
Landon Carter must have been extremely annoyed and fed up with his female slaves to record their laziness and his agitation in his journal so often. He mentioned the women being over dramatic, claiming they are sick but in actuality are not, and being bored with their work so mistakes are made. To me,he doesn't seem like a "typical" southern slave owner. Most would force their slaves to do work and not except excuses for their laziness. He seemed to be giving up in his last entry claiming that he can't do anything to train them to do their work. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Landon Carter is a whiner. He complains when his slaves make mistakes and whips them to help them remember to do their jobs right. I do not understand how he can think that will make them work harder. To me that would just make me angry and I would do worse then I did before. I guess maybe he tried to help Mary Mcginis daughter but that was not really help. When things do not get done it could be for another reason then they were lazy. He is so arrogant and feel superior to his slaves. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== George Washington's slave list (1786) and slave work assignments (1786-88) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Eulalia Perez Recalls her work in a mission in Spanish CA in early 19th Century (1877) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Karin Wulf, “Women’s Work in Colonial Philadelphia,” 2000 ==<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf concludes her article by stating that "work", especially for women of 18th Century Philadelphia and other urban cities, became "an important source of personal and community identity." (p.103) She continues by arguing that many workers identified with their work, especially if it "enmeshed them in networks of obligation and association." I am wondering if a colonial woman's perception and close identification of her work as being related to her place in the larger community is resulting from a sense of wanting to feel "needed" by others, especially if the woman who was working (either outside or inside the home) was single or a widow. Perhaps work offered such women a means of fulfillment- a way to feel that they had an obligation and responsibility to fulfill to the larger community. I'm not sure if I am making much sense. I guess I am thinking that upon the death of their husbands, or if they were single and did not have any children, working allowed such women to feel that they were "needed" (I can't think of a better word)and could contribute to the community and society in their own way. I think exploring the emotions and motivations of the women to take up work would be very interesting, though probably difficult to research. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
Karin Wulf describes how women made money despite the fact that they were not really to work the men were. Retailing was huge for women in colonial times. Wulf says that women could have made up half of the retailing business and I find that interesting because there are still more women in retail then there are men. I like how she pointed out that even rich widows worked shopkeepers at high end stores. Women from all social classes made money. Most women needed income after they became widows because their husbands did not leave them their entire inheritance. Most of that would go to there sons. I like this article because we are not taught that much about how women made money in colonial times. -LeAnn Taggart</div>Ltaggart 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