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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=MturnerMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:30:18ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:48:31Z<p>Mturner: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:47:51Z<p>Mturner: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</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 has 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:47:09Z<p>Mturner: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</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 />
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 has 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:46:44Z<p>Mturner: /* Sarah Grimke’s response to the Mass Clergy, 1837 */</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 />
~~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 has 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:28:38Z<p>Mturner: /* Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. */</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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_12_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 12 Questions/Comments-327 092009-11-12T14:28:21Z<p>Mturner: /* Maria Stewart, 1831, “O, Ye Daughters of Africa, Awake!” in the Liberator. */</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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
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>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_10_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 10 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-29T13:57:05Z<p>Mturner: /* Rose Williams’s Story in the Federal Writers’ Project Interviews, 1941. */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Sarah Haynesworth Gayle, “An Alabama Diary,” 1828, 1833 ==<br />
<br />
In Sarah Haynesworth Gayle’s diary she talks about how her slaves are no longer as obedient as they had been previously. She describes them as lazy and full of complaints. Even her favorite slave would not listen. What is interesting is that she takes this as an attack on herself, she states “I am unable to accommodate myself to the disagreeable change.” I’m not exactly sure what she was expected to do, or what she could do. – Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I also found it interesting that she was taking the slaves' disobedience so personally. I guess it goes back to what we talked about in class, that most southerners thought slaves were happy to be slaves and that they had a paternal relationship with them. She's probably confused because she thinks that her slaves have such a great life so why would they disobey? It's crazy the way that people can make themselves believe things that are obviously not true. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
Sarah Haynesworth’s diary entry where she was complaining about slave’s disobedience was written in 1828, I am having a hard time figuring out where this change in the slaves is coming from. In this context of time, this was before Nat Turner’s rebellion in 1831, but way after other attempted slave rebellions. So, I am curious as to where this change was coming from? – Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
Maybe Sarah Haynesworth Gayle's means of discipline was not as threatening to the slaves as it had been under her parents and felt that they could rebel more strongly without a proactive master. Though I don't think that their was goal to to be sold (a group that size may have had slave families), nothing is said about actions taken by mr or mrs Gayle to correct their behavior and Mrs. Gayle seems to use the sale of her slaves as vengeance to the poor behavior they had been exhibiting. - Will Hechmer<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 />
Slavery obviously had a serious emotional and psychological impact on slaves, and the Grimké reading shows how slavery could impact whites. In the case described here a woman is cruel and abusive, faultfinding, and prone towards emotional outbursts that could be extended beyond her slaves and onto her family. There’s also the matter of hypocrisy in being accepted by the community as a good Christian in spite of these vicious faults. However, I’m curious what kind of psychological effects slavery had on men and woman of the South who did not believe in slavery, rare as they were, but who witnessed its horrors. Angelina says “one who is a slaveholder at heart never recognizes a human being in a slave (217).” But people like the Grimké sisters saw human beings, and constantly witnessing violence done to others can be quite a harrowing experience. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
<br />
One thing that I was not quite sure about in this article was who slavery was doing the most damage to. While the the descriptions of the beatings of the slaves did make me feel for them, it seemed to me that the point of the article was to show how bad slavery made the slave-owning women become. Were the descriptions of the punishments that the slaves faced more horrendous due to the fact that a women was administering them? Would this writing have been less effective if it had described a slave-owning male? -John Rowley<br />
<br />
I like the question that John brought up in his post, I think that Angelina Grimke purposely depicted a slave owning female as opposed to male. At least in my opinion it seemed like it would be more shocking to Northern women to read of the cruelty being administered by their southern counterparts. I think her story might have been less shocking if she had depicted a tale of a cruel master. I noticed that the husband (if he existed) of the mistress in question was not mentioned during the story. Beating and whipping definitely appeared as punishments that would be associated with male slave owners and not mistresses.I was horrified that a supposedly gentile woman could administer such terrible beatings. It is much easier as the reader to conjure up an image of an evil slave owner not of his wife. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I think that Angelina Grimke Weld's account of the treatment of slaves really made me realize the extent to which slaves were abused. They not only had to suffer through physical torture/abuse, but also dealt with verbal abuse, especially by their mistress in this case. I think people mostly focus on the abuse of slaves who worked outside, from the manual labor and the whippings, but I think that the "house-servants", as Grimke calls them, also suffered just as much if not more. What I found odd was how the mistress claimed to be such a devout Christian and prayed and sang praises at the family altar daily, and then a couple of hours later, a slave was taken their to whipped inhumanely. It just didn't make sense to me how someone could be so two-faced and hypocritical. I think Angelina Grimke Ward summed up the mindset of slave holders in one simple sentence: "Slaveholders think nothing of them, because they regard their slaves as ''property'' the mere instruments of their convenience and pleasure." (Woloch, P. 217)--- Alex Mankarios<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 />
Having a husband that was a lawyer and official in the Confederacy, Mary Boymin Chestnut may have visited Charleston which is port city having access to goods that may have been brought over from China which had just experienced the second opium war. Being in the upperclass, having disposable income, and having a rebellious nature (keeping a secret diary in a lock box to write whatever social commentaries she wants sounds a little rebellious for a lady at this time to me) and having an unhappy domestic life, seems to fit in with using opium in my opinion. She seemed like an interesting person to me, denouncing the clergy and arguing that slavery is a "curse" becuase of the bad that it brings out in people instead of the human rights that the slaves have as people. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
Like the previous posters I was rather confused/shocked by the casual mention of her using opium. I suppose I have the same question as above how often did people of her status use opium? Another thing that caught my attention was her saying “I was amused. Said Elizabeth was his /present/ wife.” this is an example of what we talked about earlier in the semester about “now wives” and such. –Megan M.<br />
<br />
I was, like everyone else that posted, shocked by the way Mary's discussed her use of opium. It seems strange to me that a woman in her position would be using drugs. I am also curious as to how many other women were using opium. Was this common? -Katelyn Lease<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 />
I agree with both Allison and Megan, the master/slave relationship was not simple. Not only did the masters control the work that the slaves did but dictated their lives in general. Rose Williams' is a good example of this. It is an interesting relationship because though every aspect of her life was controlled, she still felt like still owed it to her Mr. Hawkins to be with the man who he chose for her. Mr. Hawkins would be getting more slaves out of the deal, but what would Rose be getting? I guess the better question would be, what wouldn't Rose be getting? and that would be whipped. Rose states, "De nex' day de massa call me and tell me, "Woman, I's pay big money for you and I's done dat for de cause I wants yous to raise me chilllens. I's put you to life with Rufus for dat purpose. Now, if you doesn't want whippin' at de stake, yous do what I wants."" I think what stood out to me most in this reading is how Rose was treated. I realize that slaves were property, and owners could do what they wanted. But in my crazy mind, I imagined that slaves would do their work but would be able to have their own families or personal time once work was done, I didn't think that these families were forced upon women as means to get more slaves for their owners. I guess I always just assumed that slave women wanted families of their own, this definitely wasn't the case! --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
This was a very sad story to me for several reasons. First, while she was interviewed in 1941, it was sad to read that she even referred to herself as a nigger several times. It just shows how ingrained it was into her brain and how slavery had really quite diminished her own self-worth. Additionally, at the end of the story when she speaks about how after she was forced to procreate with rufus she lost all desire to have anymore children, struck me as interesting. This is something that is often common in women who have been raped. While we may not consider the situation rape because she eventually gave in, we have to be mindful that she was basically under duress to have intercourse with a man she did not want to be with. That is RAPE. She clearly still had emotional damage. I think that as humans, regardless of how educated we may be, we know the difference between ourselves and animals---and clearly Ms. Williams was treated like an animal. -Mary Turner <br />
<br />
<br />
I assumed the same thing Erin did about slave women wanting families of their own. I enjoyed reading Rose Williams's story. Although her life was almost 100% dictated by her master, she found subtle ways to undermine his authority, like showing Rufus who was in charge when she was forced to live with him. Also, it was interesting to see the male/female relationship at work. Rose showed no respect to Rufus, and pretty much wore the pants in their relationship. But the male/female relationship was very different between Rose and her master. She did what he wanted, although she didn't agree with it. It just goes to show how white superiority was so strong while the way Blacks interacted with one another was so different. --- Alex Mankarios<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 />
I thought this was a really interesting, and unique, document- I'm sure there must not be many like it. Lucinda, like Kristina stated, must have deeply loved her husband- so much so that she requests to be reenslaved even when she has gained her freedom. Why would she do this? Even if she was reenslaved, there was always the possibility that her husband might be sold off and she would be separated from him then. Lucinda, however, takes this risk, which I think shows remarkable bravery and courage, as well as loyalty and devotion to her husband. I wonder what her previous experiences were with enslavement- maybe under her "late" mistress, Mary Matthews, she was treated fairly well and therefore had no real perception of how violent slavery under a different master or perhaps on a different plantation could be. I wonder whether this knowledge would have influenced her decision in any way? -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
It was very incredible to read that a slave would willingly be put back into slavery after being freed just to be with her husband. I think this qualifies as proof that love can make you stupid. This situation is a clear example of the many ways that slave owners could use family to keep control over slaves. While separating families (or the threat of it) and laws preventing freed blacks from living in the state controls blacks, but it also seems like it could be a check on other slave owners. If slave owners who considered the possibility of freeing their slaves after their deaths see that some of the freed slaves go right back to being slaves again, they’d probably be less inclined to bother. Also, freed blacks willingly entering slavery again helped reinforce the idea of paternalism. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
This petition was incredibly interesting in the fact that Lucinda refused freedom to be able to stay with her husband. She was asking to be re-enslaved since the state did not allow emancipated slaves to stay within the state. I find this remarkable. I would’ve thought she would have gone North, find work in whatever area she could and then save up some money to buy his freedom. However, she asked to be bought by her husband’s owner. I feel like this would probably have, as Taylor also mentions, convince white slave masters that slaves needed a father figure in their idea of paternalism. –Megan M<br />
<br />
I thought this account was kind of inspiring and sad at the same time. This woman achieved what most slaves only dreamed about-freedom. Once she attained it, however, she did not want it. She did not want to be free without her husband. I think it shows that love is very powerful and was still very much a part of people's marriages even in the 19th Century and even for slaves. I thought this woman was brave and romantic. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I felt really sad after I read this. She was finally free but couldn't be happy because her husband was not with her. That definitely shows how much she loved him and how important he was to her. Freedom was a dream for slaves. She was incredibly brave to refuse freedom in order to stay with her husband. I wonder how often situations like this happened. I agree with Megan that it would have made sense if Lucinda went to the North and tried to save money in order to buy his freedom. Maybe Lucinda felt that she may never have been able to afford it. I agree with Taylor that Lucinda willingly reentering slavery reinforces the idea of paternalism. Her master was probably thinking that her life was so great being a slave that that is why she stayed. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Connecticut woman asks other free black women to sign anti-slavery petitions, 1839 ==<br />
I felt the persuasion utilized in this argument was very compelling. I would have felt guilty if I had been a free Black woman and had not acted. She uses everything that women are supposed to care about(taking care of their family) as a reason for other women to get involved. Her descriptions are also very vivid and provide a picture of the hardships of slave women and their children. How common and how effective were these types of addresses in getting women involved?--Nancy Lee<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 />
After reading Mrs. Hayes account, I feel like her experience as a slave was quite different from the typical slave experience. Hayes writes about her master, saying, "He never bothered to collect their [slaves] wages himself. Our master allowed his slaves so much freedom that we were called free niggers by slaves on other plantations." (MP P. 181) Mrs. Hayes knew she had a decently good life for being a slave but was very aware of the plights of nearby slaves and was sympathetic to their troubles. The things Mrs. Hayes said about Diana and how she was treated by her master probably describes many female slaves lives. I thought it was interesting how the mistress was sympathetic towards Diana, after she was assaulted. I would have expected the opposite; that the mistress would have just ignored the problem. It was almost as though the mistress and Diana shared a similar experience, both being abused by the master/husband, sexually for Diana and physically for the mistress. --- Alex Mankarios<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<br />
<br />
When Thelma Jennings wrote that slave women would go so far as to induce miscarriages and practice abortion in order "deprive" their owners of what they most wanted (more slaves in order to increase their productivity and therefore their wealth and social standing), I was astonished. I can understand it being a form of passive resistance, and slave women perhaps wanting to assert some control over their lives in any way that they could, but I can't imagine being so resentful and bitter (perhaps that is not the best word, but I can't think of a better one right now....) that a woman would take the life of her child. Did she feel it was in the child's best interests- maybe to prevent him/her from suffering the way that she felt she was suffering? I'm not sure. That statement just totally blew me away- it made me realize how far some slave women were really willing to go in order to demonstrate, in their own way, their contempt and hatred of the situation they were in. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I noticed in one of the testimonies that a woman whose father was a white slaver owner and her mother a slave described her mother as being very light skinned and favored amongst the white. That seemed to be a pattern in the literature on the south that I have read that those who were light skinned were more likely to be exploited into having sexual relations with their masters. Would women like her and mulatto children have been treated differently by their fellow slaves? I wonder if they would have been resentful and bitter towards these women and children even though they were almost always the victims. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I thought it was really sad to read about the exploitation of black women and slaves. These women seemed to be the last ones on the totem pole. They were described as genderless. Not only were they forced to have sex with white men, but they were also forced at times to mate with black men to reproduce the type of offspring that the master wanted. I think it's despicable that after a woman got pregnant that she was forced to work in the fields or forced to do work in general and at the same time received physical abuse. I did like the ending of the essay, however, that even though these women received such treatment they had faith that the future would be different. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
This article sheds light on the practice of sexual abuse of a slave by their owner. I found it surprising that, according to one line of questioning, "Twenty-two [interviewees'] ... fathers were white men" (Jennings, 186) and in another line of questioning, "Thirty-six of the interviewees ... noted that the master himself was guilty of interracial sex" (Jennings, 187). These interviews show that, not only sexual abuse, but slave breeding was a visible component to the institution of slavery. This article makes me wonder how the wives of slaveholders felt about their husbands extramarital affairs, since they ''must'' have been aware it was happening. Did they support their husbands actions from either a financial or social standpoint? -Seth Mintzer</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-22T14:05:39Z<p>Mturner: /* A Sioux Tale, “A Woman Kills Her Daughter” */</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 />
I feel like Emma Willard's letter to her sister is paradoxical to the view of marriage a lot of women had during that time. This was a time when women were marrying for love and looking for romance in a relationship rather than status, etc. For such a time when women were finally able to have a choice in whom they married, Emma Willard was extremely pessimistic about her sister's marriage. '''She may have just been trying to be honest with her sister about what would happen in her marriage, but I feel like she completely disregarded the romanticized view of marriage.''' She was more realistically aware of the possibilities of "your lover's seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you"(in regards to her sister's husband) (P. 144). While she may have been harsh in showing her sister the realities of marriage, Emma was probably only trying to protect her sister from her own naivety and reverie. --- Alex Mankarios<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 also found Caroline Gilman's story and experiences to be sad. I feel like, regardless of the idea of a companionate marriage and mutual affection, the expectations of deference do still remain. As a result, I think many women, like Caroline, kind of "lose themselves", in a way, to their husbands. It seems like Caroline does not think of herself or her feelings and desires as being important and deserving attention and respect at all- she considers a "good wife" to be ready to receive her husband with a cheerful smile and willingness to listen, even when in reality she wishes she would receive the same in return. There seems to be a definite imbalance here. -Allison Godart<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 />
I also agree with you guys. This story definitely has a connection to modern times. I know a woman, who's in her sixties, and she still barely even breathes without asking her husband. Anytime one of the kids would misbehave, there was always the threat of "I'm telling your dad". Like she was incapable of punishing them herself. I could definitely tell a difference between this story and most of the other writings that we have read. It's obvious this woman is a professional writer instead of a woman simply writing in her journal. She builds up her story and makes it seem so dramatic. I agree with LeAnn, Gilman annoyed me too a little. -Katelyn Lease<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 />
'''''How did this get printed annually for 15 years? It seems alot like common sense so have a washing day for example. Or to have a trunk with things labeled in there for sewing.''''' The last paragraph also seemed like a joke to me, "She can have regular periods for reading, walking, visiting..." it's as if Beecher is giving them permission to do these things as if they needed it. -Megan M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan. I couldn't believe that this was printed annually for 15 years. But then again, I guess it makes sense. Honestly, what else would the women at this time read about? Especially during the time of the cult of domesticity. Women were probably interested in ways to be a better wife and homemaker. A lot of the stuff in this does seem like common sense, or at least things they probably already know. I found it interesting when Beecher said "The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman and the interests of the whole family are secured". I think it's important to recognize that even though many of these women weren't doing amazing things, many worked hard to care for their families. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
When reading First to None I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Catharine Sedgwick. She spent her life surrounded by her friends and her family who she knew loved, admired, and respected her but she never felt like she was a first priority. '''She states, “I would not advise anyone to remain unmarried, for my experience has been a singularly happy one”. I think it is interesting that such a great writer of stories about the home and family had such a contradiction in her own life. Sedgwick was a successful author with close friends and family, and she was unhappy with her decision to remain unmarried.''' I can only imagine how the average women would handle a single existence in a society that was so focused on the family. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
As we discussed in class, '''there was an increase in unmarried ladies along the eastern seaboard, part of which was attributed to there being less men. In the case of Catharine Sedgwick, we see another part of that is a result of the idealization of marriage.''' Catharine bemoans her unmarried status, attributing it to her high standards and unwillingness to accept mediocre offers. Of course, Catharine could afford not to settle, as she had plenty of successful brothers who were willing to take care of her, at least early on. '''To what extent did the idealization of marriage impact how lower class women chose their husbands?''' -- Taylor Brann<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 />
I thought that this piece was really depressing. First, she looses four children, then her husband, and not long after both her and her youngest daughter die. But, it was interesting to see through her entries how much she loved and missed her husband. It is a sign of the times that she missed her husband because of the love they shared between them. '''One question though: what were the meetings that she wrote about? Is it a code for church?''' -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
Widowhood in the 19th century has several similarities to widowhood in earlier centuries. Women were dependent on their husbands, and without them they could lose their households and be left to rely on distant relatives for support. '''In the case of Sarah Connell Ayer, this state and the grief over her husband left her miserable and angst-ridden (not exactly prime material for remarriage!). I’m left wondering what effects companionate marriage had on widowhood for both men and women. If women and men looked for partners on the basis of love and affection, did the loss of those partners create even more grief?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina that one cannot feel sorry for Sarah Ayer. Sarah mentions that "many years had elapsed" since she saw her family, and when she traveled to see them she "knew none of the passengers on board" (Woloch, 158); The distant relationship from her parents and siblings and her unfamiliarity with those who travel show the restrictions placed on a woman dedicated to her role in the domestic sphere. Also, '''in the spring after her husband's death, she spends a great deal of time (almost every entry in April) socializing with others in her community. This shows that the community provided support for her and, even with the loss of most of her immediate family, Sarah was not alone. ''' -Seth Mintzer <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<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 />
I also thought that this was a really interesting piece. But, '''I wonder why Mulford copied the rules in the first place?''' Also, I thought it was very interesting that on the 5th rule it is said that if you missed church that you better have a very good excuse "at the day of Judgement." Does that mean that when they died they had better have a good excuse to god why they didn't make it to church that day? It seems like such a scary way of saying "don't skip church." And lastly, I just wanted to point out something that made me laugh: under the questions part, it is mostly just going back and asking if you followed all the rules, then at the very end it says, "'''have you eaten any green fruit during the week."''' I just found that really random and out of place. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
The student checklist at the end of Mulford's notebook entry depicts multiple components to an education that strengthen more than just one's mind. The expectations for students to have "combed hair ... cleaned teeth ... [and] eaten green fruit" and for students to have "attended public worship ... [and] prayed to that God" emphasizes strengthening one's body and soul, respectively, as well (Woloch, 164). '''These rules follow the guidelines that literature promoting female education, such as Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Female Education, had set forth during the Revolution.''' The '''other aspect of Eliza's notebook I found interesting was that the religious structure taught at school was probably already practiced within the students' homes. Why was it necessary for the schools to reiterate behaviors that parents had already instilled?''' - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I thought it was funny that the 5th rule says if you missed church you better have a good excuse on Judgement day, like God would completely disown them if they missed a single day. I also found it to be interesting that basically every rule for this school was related to religion. Most of the questions were also about something religious. Except the green fruit one. That seemed a little random to me. The majority of these rules are rules that I would expect from a girls' school in NE. A lot of them seemed more like morals than rules. Especially "do unto others, as you would they should do unto you". -Katelyn Lease<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 />
<br />
As Marsha mentioned above, the Choctaw kids would get very emotional when their parents would leave. Why was this so much more obvious than with white kids? Also like Marsha, I'm a little confused about why parents of a different faith and culture would be so eager to leave their kids with the missionaries. The only things I can think is that the Choctaws could have been hurting for money or resources, or else, exactly as it appears, the parents were simply hoping a christian education would lead to a more prosperous life in the new nation. -erin b<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 />
I found the phrasing for some of the rules a bit funny like "Each one to enter the house without unnecessary noise or confusion..." I also thought it interesting the sort of seniority in the rules for the women. Those that worked their longest sat at the head of the table and slept in the North room. Women who were newer would sit farther down the table, based on how long they'd been there and sleep in the South Chamber. '''Just wondering how old would some of the most senior women in these places be?''' -Megan M.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet Farley, who was a minister's daughter, was writing a fictional letter that made the mill look like a happy place to work. '''The timing of the letter shows the way the mill owners utilized the journal for their own benefit--perhaps to counteract the female labor reform movement. It was interesting that she asked in the letter if anyone was really content. So, it's not just the work at the mill that could be making someone discontent, but that no one is content no matter where they are or what kind of work they are doing.''' '''''Although the journal certainly could be considered as a "creative" outlet for the workers, how many people outside of the mill read it and how many were aware that the mill owner's owned and controlled the editorial policy?'''''--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
When the author is speaking about "not living to self altogether, but have the good of mankind in view" do you think she is talking about a larger working class movement or about the tendency of factory workers to just go with the flow because they know they will not be at the factory long term? Or both?<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 == <br />
<br />
'''My favorite part about this entry was when she throws in at the end "my eighth child was born" Did I miss something???''' She doesn't mention being pregnant throughout the entire thing (as far as I could tell)Just one entry of being sick all night. But then all of a sudden she is giving birth and crossing the columbia river on a canoe! As if the oregon trail wasn't difficult enough she was pregnant and already had seven children? Oh my goodness I am horrified for her.-Emma Peck<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 />
While reading this I couldn't help but wonder what her husband was doing while she was busy being a peace maker, cook, laundress, seamstress etc. '''What were the chances of her husband being successful in his venture? Could he have been making money off the gold rush? It seemed to me that while the men were wildly seeking gold the women were actually making a living in the various different business ventures that they began.''' I was amazed at the amount of responsibility she had in the community, I wonder what kind of life she lead back home and if it had any resemblance to her lifestyle in california. I can't imagine that hogs would have been running through her kitchen though! Why did she leave though? Was it just meant to be a short venture to get more money? Her letter does show that women who lived in less settled communities on the frontier had more opportunities then there Eastern counterparts might have, however they lead very difficult lives. So who had it better?-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I had thought some of the same things as Emma. I wondered, is it better to be working all day and have the opportunity to earn money, or would it have been better to just sit at home and "housewife" all day? I think this story illustrates an ongoing struggle in society, even today for women. On one have hand, most women, like men as well, yearn to feel satisfied at the end of the day with accomplishments they have made. However, women are also expected to be the nurturing care givers to their family. So, we see that while she is clearly proud of herself for her work, and wages, and skills--she misses her children a great deal and nearly sounds like she feels guilty for not being with them.- Mary Turner<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 />
'''When reading this document I wondered who the intended audience of this petition was.''' The first petition mentions their "duty as mothers" in the first paragraph and the Cherokees children are mentioned constantly throughout both. '''Could they be appealing more towards women, who would better understand their feelings of raising children, than towards men?''' In the last paragraph of the second petition the council describes the assimilated white men who become their enemies partly by not caring about their wives and their children. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
This petition reveals some interesting things about women in the early 1800s; more specifically, Indian women. These women were able to go before their chiefs or "government" to protest the U.S. government's taking of their land. The women made their case to the chiefs and elders of the tribe, evoking great emotion to argue their position. The way the women went to the chiefs, alone, shows that women's privileges within the tribe were either the same or had increased in some capacity from the 1600s. What is even more interesting is how the women were able to persuade the tribe to keep their land. '''It shows the distinctiveness between Indian women and white women. I feel that if a white women had to make a petition to their government, it would be overlooked.''' But here, within the tribe, the women proved themselves to have power and an opinion within the tribe. Maybe this petition could have been used as an example, to encourage white women to speak up and to encourage governments to be more encouraging of women's ideas and opinions. ----- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think, personally, this may be the most interesting article I have read yet. This memoir has an obvious purpose as it continually asserts Piute morality and equality to White Americans in deliberately showing Piute female virtue, lack of war-dances, productivity, and honor. '''But it also has an obvious audience and secondary purpose as it educates (White Americans) about Piute life, such as female puberty rites, marriage rules, and council regulations. Because it has said audience, it is very enlightening and describes topics otherwise we might not have prior knowledge of, nor have access to, such as the ministration rites. I think this is a very valuable source for both women and Piute studies and can tell us about many social, political, and gender ideas that the Piute held during the 1800s.''' – Elyse Lawrence<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<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Moral of story: If you’re going to be a cougar, don’t go after your son-in-law! No, but really, this was a very interesting story and it had several important points about Sioux cultural ideas that we can learn about with a little more research, in addition to describing gender rules and familial obligations. ''' First of all is the mother-in-law avoidance policy. I know the Navajo have such a rule of mother-in-law avoidance out of respect and honor to the mother of the wife, and head matriarch, but I was not familiar with Sioux mother-in-law avoidance and would be interesting to study further to see if this is similar or different to the Navajo policy and its purpose. The second idea is the creation of a mermaid figure of the woman / half fish creature. I am not sure what this means / represents within Sioux culture, but again I think this would be a very interesting research topic. As an Anthropology major, I would love to unpack this tale for its symbolic and cultural significance, but I think in general, this story has a lot to tell us about Sioux pastimes (swimming / swinging - for children only?), gender roles (birthing, nursing and preparing food), and family interaction (mother-in-law avoidance) that was thought important enough to be included in this story. –Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting that in the intro of the story, it says that the two men (son-in-law and brother) are basically the heros, and that the two women are the villian and victim. I wonder what that says about the culture. Did they always assume that a woman was either a vindictive villian, or just a victim of society. Are there women in the Sioux culture who perhaps were just normal and capable of defeating evil on their own, or did they always need a man to rescue them from what they would not forsee coming?- Mary Turner</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_9_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 9 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-22T13:56:13Z<p>Mturner: /* Mary Ballou, “A Woman’s View of the Gold Rush,” 1852 */</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 />
I feel like Emma Willard's letter to her sister is paradoxical to the view of marriage a lot of women had during that time. This was a time when women were marrying for love and looking for romance in a relationship rather than status, etc. For such a time when women were finally able to have a choice in whom they married, Emma Willard was extremely pessimistic about her sister's marriage. '''She may have just been trying to be honest with her sister about what would happen in her marriage, but I feel like she completely disregarded the romanticized view of marriage.''' She was more realistically aware of the possibilities of "your lover's seeing some object that he will consider more interesting than you"(in regards to her sister's husband) (P. 144). While she may have been harsh in showing her sister the realities of marriage, Emma was probably only trying to protect her sister from her own naivety and reverie. --- Alex Mankarios<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 />
I also agree with you guys. This story definitely has a connection to modern times. I know a woman, who's in her sixties, and she still barely even breathes without asking her husband. Anytime one of the kids would misbehave, there was always the threat of "I'm telling your dad". Like she was incapable of punishing them herself. I could definitely tell a difference between this story and most of the other writings that we have read. It's obvious this woman is a professional writer instead of a woman simply writing in her journal. She builds up her story and makes it seem so dramatic. I agree with LeAnn, Gilman annoyed me too a little. -Katelyn Lease<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 />
'''''How did this get printed annually for 15 years? It seems alot like common sense so have a washing day for example. Or to have a trunk with things labeled in there for sewing.''''' The last paragraph also seemed like a joke to me, "She can have regular periods for reading, walking, visiting..." it's as if Beecher is giving them permission to do these things as if they needed it. -Megan M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan. I couldn't believe that this was printed annually for 15 years. But then again, I guess it makes sense. Honestly, what else would the women at this time read about? Especially during the time of the cult of domesticity. Women were probably interested in ways to be a better wife and homemaker. A lot of the stuff in this does seem like common sense, or at least things they probably already know. I found it interesting when Beecher said "The proper education of a man decides the welfare of an individual; but educate a woman and the interests of the whole family are secured". I think it's important to recognize that even though many of these women weren't doing amazing things, many worked hard to care for their families. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
== Catharine Sedgwick, “First to None,” 1828 ==<br />
<br />
When reading First to None I couldn’t help but feel sorry for Catharine Sedgwick. She spent her life surrounded by her friends and her family who she knew loved, admired, and respected her but she never felt like she was a first priority. '''She states, “I would not advise anyone to remain unmarried, for my experience has been a singularly happy one”. I think it is interesting that such a great writer of stories about the home and family had such a contradiction in her own life. Sedgwick was a successful author with close friends and family, and she was unhappy with her decision to remain unmarried.''' I can only imagine how the average women would handle a single existence in a society that was so focused on the family. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
As we discussed in class, '''there was an increase in unmarried ladies along the eastern seaboard, part of which was attributed to there being less men. In the case of Catharine Sedgwick, we see another part of that is a result of the idealization of marriage.''' Catharine bemoans her unmarried status, attributing it to her high standards and unwillingness to accept mediocre offers. Of course, Catharine could afford not to settle, as she had plenty of successful brothers who were willing to take care of her, at least early on. '''To what extent did the idealization of marriage impact how lower class women chose their husbands?''' -- Taylor Brann<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 />
I thought that this piece was really depressing. First, she looses four children, then her husband, and not long after both her and her youngest daughter die. But, it was interesting to see through her entries how much she loved and missed her husband. It is a sign of the times that she missed her husband because of the love they shared between them. '''One question though: what were the meetings that she wrote about? Is it a code for church?''' -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
Widowhood in the 19th century has several similarities to widowhood in earlier centuries. Women were dependent on their husbands, and without them they could lose their households and be left to rely on distant relatives for support. '''In the case of Sarah Connell Ayer, this state and the grief over her husband left her miserable and angst-ridden (not exactly prime material for remarriage!). I’m left wondering what effects companionate marriage had on widowhood for both men and women. If women and men looked for partners on the basis of love and affection, did the loss of those partners create even more grief?''' -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree with Kristina that one cannot feel sorry for Sarah Ayer. Sarah mentions that "many years had elapsed" since she saw her family, and when she traveled to see them she "knew none of the passengers on board" (Woloch, 158); The distant relationship from her parents and siblings and her unfamiliarity with those who travel show the restrictions placed on a woman dedicated to her role in the domestic sphere. Also, '''in the spring after her husband's death, she spends a great deal of time (almost every entry in April) socializing with others in her community. This shows that the community provided support for her and, even with the loss of most of her immediate family, Sarah was not alone. ''' -Seth Mintzer <br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 8 – School and Mill'''<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 />
I also thought that this was a really interesting piece. But, '''I wonder why Mulford copied the rules in the first place?''' Also, I thought it was very interesting that on the 5th rule it is said that if you missed church that you better have a very good excuse "at the day of Judgement." Does that mean that when they died they had better have a good excuse to god why they didn't make it to church that day? It seems like such a scary way of saying "don't skip church." And lastly, I just wanted to point out something that made me laugh: under the questions part, it is mostly just going back and asking if you followed all the rules, then at the very end it says, "'''have you eaten any green fruit during the week."''' I just found that really random and out of place. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
The student checklist at the end of Mulford's notebook entry depicts multiple components to an education that strengthen more than just one's mind. The expectations for students to have "combed hair ... cleaned teeth ... [and] eaten green fruit" and for students to have "attended public worship ... [and] prayed to that God" emphasizes strengthening one's body and soul, respectively, as well (Woloch, 164). '''These rules follow the guidelines that literature promoting female education, such as Benjamin Rush's Thoughts on Female Education, had set forth during the Revolution.''' The '''other aspect of Eliza's notebook I found interesting was that the religious structure taught at school was probably already practiced within the students' homes. Why was it necessary for the schools to reiterate behaviors that parents had already instilled?''' - Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I thought it was funny that the 5th rule says if you missed church you better have a good excuse on Judgement day, like God would completely disown them if they missed a single day. I also found it to be interesting that basically every rule for this school was related to religion. Most of the questions were also about something religious. Except the green fruit one. That seemed a little random to me. The majority of these rules are rules that I would expect from a girls' school in NE. A lot of them seemed more like morals than rules. Especially "do unto others, as you would they should do unto you". -Katelyn Lease<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 />
<br />
As Marsha mentioned above, the Choctaw kids would get very emotional when their parents would leave. Why was this so much more obvious than with white kids? Also like Marsha, I'm a little confused about why parents of a different faith and culture would be so eager to leave their kids with the missionaries. The only things I can think is that the Choctaws could have been hurting for money or resources, or else, exactly as it appears, the parents were simply hoping a christian education would lead to a more prosperous life in the new nation. -erin b<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 />
I found the phrasing for some of the rules a bit funny like "Each one to enter the house without unnecessary noise or confusion..." I also thought it interesting the sort of seniority in the rules for the women. Those that worked their longest sat at the head of the table and slept in the North room. Women who were newer would sit farther down the table, based on how long they'd been there and sleep in the South Chamber. '''Just wondering how old would some of the most senior women in these places be?''' -Megan M.<br />
<br />
== Harriet Farley, “A Letter from Lowell,” 1844 ==<br />
I found it interesting that Harriet Farley, who was a minister's daughter, was writing a fictional letter that made the mill look like a happy place to work. '''The timing of the letter shows the way the mill owners utilized the journal for their own benefit--perhaps to counteract the female labor reform movement. It was interesting that she asked in the letter if anyone was really content. So, it's not just the work at the mill that could be making someone discontent, but that no one is content no matter where they are or what kind of work they are doing.''' '''''Although the journal certainly could be considered as a "creative" outlet for the workers, how many people outside of the mill read it and how many were aware that the mill owner's owned and controlled the editorial policy?'''''--Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
== The Voice of Industry, “A Spirit of Protest,” 1846 ==<br />
<br />
When the author is speaking about "not living to self altogether, but have the good of mankind in view" do you think she is talking about a larger working class movement or about the tendency of factory workers to just go with the flow because they know they will not be at the factory long term? Or both?<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Chapter 9 – Western Frontiers'''<br />
<br />
== Amelia Stewart Knight, “Crossing the Plains,” 1853 == <br />
<br />
'''My favorite part about this entry was when she throws in at the end "my eighth child was born" Did I miss something???''' She doesn't mention being pregnant throughout the entire thing (as far as I could tell)Just one entry of being sick all night. But then all of a sudden she is giving birth and crossing the columbia river on a canoe! As if the oregon trail wasn't difficult enough she was pregnant and already had seven children? Oh my goodness I am horrified for her.-Emma Peck<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 />
While reading this I couldn't help but wonder what her husband was doing while she was busy being a peace maker, cook, laundress, seamstress etc. '''What were the chances of her husband being successful in his venture? Could he have been making money off the gold rush? It seemed to me that while the men were wildly seeking gold the women were actually making a living in the various different business ventures that they began.''' I was amazed at the amount of responsibility she had in the community, I wonder what kind of life she lead back home and if it had any resemblance to her lifestyle in california. I can't imagine that hogs would have been running through her kitchen though! Why did she leave though? Was it just meant to be a short venture to get more money? Her letter does show that women who lived in less settled communities on the frontier had more opportunities then there Eastern counterparts might have, however they lead very difficult lives. So who had it better?-Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I had thought some of the same things as Emma. I wondered, is it better to be working all day and have the opportunity to earn money, or would it have been better to just sit at home and "housewife" all day? I think this story illustrates an ongoing struggle in society, even today for women. On one have hand, most women, like men as well, yearn to feel satisfied at the end of the day with accomplishments they have made. However, women are also expected to be the nurturing care givers to their family. So, we see that while she is clearly proud of herself for her work, and wages, and skills--she misses her children a great deal and nearly sounds like she feels guilty for not being with them.- Mary Turner<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 />
'''When reading this document I wondered who the intended audience of this petition was.''' The first petition mentions their "duty as mothers" in the first paragraph and the Cherokees children are mentioned constantly throughout both. '''Could they be appealing more towards women, who would better understand their feelings of raising children, than towards men?''' In the last paragraph of the second petition the council describes the assimilated white men who become their enemies partly by not caring about their wives and their children. -John Rowley<br />
<br />
This petition reveals some interesting things about women in the early 1800s; more specifically, Indian women. These women were able to go before their chiefs or "government" to protest the U.S. government's taking of their land. The women made their case to the chiefs and elders of the tribe, evoking great emotion to argue their position. The way the women went to the chiefs, alone, shows that women's privileges within the tribe were either the same or had increased in some capacity from the 1600s. What is even more interesting is how the women were able to persuade the tribe to keep their land. '''It shows the distinctiveness between Indian women and white women. I feel that if a white women had to make a petition to their government, it would be overlooked.''' But here, within the tribe, the women proved themselves to have power and an opinion within the tribe. Maybe this petition could have been used as an example, to encourage white women to speak up and to encourage governments to be more encouraging of women's ideas and opinions. ----- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
== Sarah Winnemucca, “Life Among the Paiutes,” 1883 ==<br />
<br />
I think, personally, this may be the most interesting article I have read yet. This memoir has an obvious purpose as it continually asserts Piute morality and equality to White Americans in deliberately showing Piute female virtue, lack of war-dances, productivity, and honor. '''But it also has an obvious audience and secondary purpose as it educates (White Americans) about Piute life, such as female puberty rites, marriage rules, and council regulations. Because it has said audience, it is very enlightening and describes topics otherwise we might not have prior knowledge of, nor have access to, such as the ministration rites. I think this is a very valuable source for both women and Piute studies and can tell us about many social, political, and gender ideas that the Piute held during the 1800s.''' – Elyse Lawrence<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<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Moral of story: If you’re going to be a cougar, don’t go after your son-in-law! No, but really, this was a very interesting story and it had several important points about Sioux cultural ideas that we can learn about with a little more research, in addition to describing gender rules and familial obligations. ''' First of all is the mother-in-law avoidance policy. I know the Navajo have such a rule of mother-in-law avoidance out of respect and honor to the mother of the wife, and head matriarch, but I was not familiar with Sioux mother-in-law avoidance and would be interesting to study further to see if this is similar or different to the Navajo policy and its purpose. The second idea is the creation of a mermaid figure of the woman / half fish creature. I am not sure what this means / represents within Sioux culture, but again I think this would be a very interesting research topic. As an Anthropology major, I would love to unpack this tale for its symbolic and cultural significance, but I think in general, this story has a lot to tell us about Sioux pastimes (swimming / swinging - for children only?), gender roles (birthing, nursing and preparing food), and family interaction (mother-in-law avoidance) that was thought important enough to be included in this story. –Elyse Lawrence</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_6_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 6 Questions/Comments-327 092009-10-01T14:08:45Z<p>Mturner: /* Susanna Haswell Rowson, ''Charlotte: A Tale of Truth'', 1794 */</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 />
I agree with Taylor and Megan. This did remind me of a soap opera. It was entertaining, but '''Charlotte was starting to irritate me.''' She couldn't make up her mind. "Oh I love you...No wait I love my family". I can understand why it was so popular for so long. As funny as we think it is, it was probably very interesting to the women of her time because they probably hadn't seen anything like this before. -Katelyn Lease<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 />
Regarding what Amy says, '''about Charlotte's indecisiveness: I think Susanna Rowson's story might be considered an example of what we discussed in class on Tuesday- that men of the "New Republic" did not consider women "fit" for politics because they had "weak" minds and, further, thought them to be incapable of even making their own decisions without the assistance or guidance of their male relatives (either husband, or father, etc.).''' Thus, the "dependency" of women is reinforced. I think this thought process is exhibited in "Charlotte: A Tale of Truth". As Amy states, Charlotte starts out determined but then quickly changes her mind and opinions throughout the story. As a result, I think Rowson's piece ultimately might have had a negative impact and influence on women in the long run, because it reinforced the ideas of male superiority and female dependence. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
I agree with Allison. '''Susanna Haswell Rowson was not acting exactly in a typical ladylike manner when she wrote a novel. You can tell that she is conscious of this in the preface.''' Susanna Haswell Rowson almost seems to be apologizing for stepping out of her sphere, justifying it by saying that she was writing to teach young women to guard their virtue. Again reinforcing female dependency and inferiority, she argued that her work was important because it enabled women to continue to exercise a moralizing influence over men. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
When I read the preface, I had some similar thoughts, as Allison did. I thought it was a bit odd though that she had to justify herself and almost do a bit of self-efacing. It reminded of some of the prefaces you find in slave narratives. They always seem to somewhat appologize in advance for what the audience is about to read. This is something we don see if authors today too much.- Mary Turner<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 agree with Alex. It is also important to note '''that Charlotte was only 15 years old at the time and in the supposed care of a girl's school.''' The part that her teacher plays in this story is also significant because not only is she being pressured by a man, but also by an influential female. It definitely serves as a warning to girls about men. Could it have also affected the way the girl's schools were viewed, especially concerning the character of the teachers at these schools?--Nancy Lee<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 />
'''Is it bad that I loved this?? Is there a sequel!''' Who was the consumer for this book? Mothers who read it aloud to their daughters as a warning? I was surprised of the nature of this story when I read the short bio about the author Susanna Rowson I was expecting something a little more controversial. I mean I suppose this was controversial but Charlotte was such a weak female character that it almost seemed to cancel anything else out. The fact that Rowson was a female novelist seemed to be pretty substantial and impressive considering the time period but maybe the reason why she was so popular is because she wasn't encouraging any other bad behaviors amongst women. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
Ok wait on a side note I was just looking at the article again and in the little bit about the author it says she returned to England in a prisoner exchange? Did I miss something? that seems kind of out of the ordinary was she a prisoner? Actually everything about her bio seemed rather different from that of the typical woman. '''She was an actress and a playwright! Why would such a seemingly accomplished and educated woman want to write something like this work? When I read the bio I was expecting a seriously scandalous read'''....I have to admit Charlotte fell a little short but I would still read more of it!-Emma Peck<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 />
I was surprised about the wide variety of aspects in which women were expected to "perfect." Not only did girls need to learn housewifery skills like their mothers did when they were young, this new generation also learned more academic subjects so that they could teach their sons. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I think Murray might be justifying women's education in a more subtle manner. Mr. Vigillins views on women's education shows some reluctance along with acceptance. The ''Story of Margaretta'' seems to attempt to gradually change people's minds on women's education than demand equal education. Do you think this would be a more effective approach for the time? -John Rowley<br />
<br />
The Story of Margaretta was an interesting read. Being written by a woman, it was obvious the emphasis on the benefits of education for women (children) as shown by the appraisal of Margaretta’s accomplishments, however it was put through the lens of men and so many of the benefits of the education was described in terms such as making her more valuable, more amiable, a pleasing and instruction companion (134) and her accomplishments as an accountant (135) all of which a man would most likely applause. The rant about eradicating conceit also would seem to be a male point of view, for fear of a woman knowing too much might cause her to have too large of an idea about her general place within society. All in all though, it is often times almost obvious that this was written by a woman due to her extreme knowledge of sewing accomplishments, her fashion skills, and her overall accomplishments as a lady and all that it entails that I don’t know a man would possess such understanding of the subject. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
Allison’s comment brought to mind a scene from Pride and Prejudice where Darcy is describing what accomplished women should know “A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages… and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.” <br />
As with Darcy, Mr. Vigillius in “The Story of Margaretta” expected much of women. However, I wonder, if Vigillius’ desire for his adoptive daughter to know a wide range of subjects was a wish of the author, Judith Sargent Murray, for women to be able to receive an education in the many scholarly subjects that interested them rather than just housewifery. The character Margaretta showed a certain skill in learning all these things why couldn’t other women. <br />
-Megan Mc<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<br />
<br />
I also found this piece extremely interesting, as well as thought provoking. I don't think, however, that Catherine Scholten did a very good job of explaining exactly why such a transformation in the childbirth experiences of women occurred when it did. She states that similar changes undoubtedly would have taken place even without the American Revolution, but that "heightened concern with establishing 'American' institutions and expertise speeded the development of medical schools and professional associations in the New Republic." (p.78)I'm still not really convinced. I feel as if this is explaining the changes in terms of the "male" perspective, and while Scholten does include many details as to how women going through childbirth with the assistance of a male physician rather than a midwife felt (such as their initial reservations about the use of "instruments", as well as their embarrassment at being attended to by a person of the opposite sex), I wish she had articulated her argument better and provided more thorough explanations and reasoning. I'm not sure if I'm even articulating my thoughts very well, but at the end of the piece I did feel as if she left several questions unanswered. -Allison Godart<br />
<br />
This article was incredibly interesting probably because it brings to light just how different childbirth used to be. Nowadays babies delivered by midwives at home are a rather rare event, though it appears to be an increasing “fad.” The view of childbirth shifted from a rather social event to a medical one. The reason for the pain of child birth was from Eve’s betrayal but slowly the idea changed so that they began to believe the woman did not have to suffer. What stuck out at me most in this article was the fact women were not allowed to put their feet on the ground for weeks after giving birth for fear of getting a cold and the fact that hooks would be used to dismember the baby if the unfortunate thing got stuck in the birth canal. It just goes to show the change in medical practices and beliefs from the time. What I found rather ironic was the idea that the “moral character [of women] disqualified them from medical practice” such as childbirth when for years and years they had been the ones delivering the babies.<br />
-Megan Mc<br />
<br />
I thought that it was particularly interesting how she mentions that women had some degree of power. When they were midwives, which was true. They were governed at every turn in every aspect of their lives by fathers and husbands, but in the field of child birthing, they were in control. They were the only ones knowledgeable, through both experience and readings, up to the mid 1700's when men began to take their places. As was already mentioned above, I am kind of surprised that men would kick midwives out of the birthing process so much, claiming that they were not knowledgeable. And, what is also odd to me is the fact that a man at the time would even consider being kind of a male midwife. -Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
The article “On the Importance of the Obsterick Art” was very interesting and covered general concepts of childbirth (such as positions, people present, the association with medicine, etc) we take for granted today that were not so in early America. I personally found it interesting that women did not lie in bed to deliver until the male midwife came into practice and was for modesty, rather than comfort or ease. I was also horrified at many of the tales of when deliveries went wrong such as on page 84, jerking the child out, dismembering the infant with hooks, and page 88 of accidental mutilations of the infant by “blind” male midwifes. I am frankly surprised as many children and women survived as they did, though it definitely makes more since for explaining to the high death rates! Yeiks! I thought the author could have spend more time on the explanation of the transition of birth to being a medical issue, as well as tying the concepts together such as birth being medical, medical being male role due to the incapability of the female mind, to changes in the understanding of the necessity of pain for females, and changes in ideas of decorum and male interaction in the delivery room. I thought this all could have been analyzed better as well as further explaining the concept of how childbirth is related to nation building and new national identities as talked about on page 78 which I don’t think she explained very well if at all. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
I agree with Elyse that the author's argument could have been analyzed better. While we get many male views on the transition of childbirth going from an "open ceremony" (89) towards a more private event, there was a lack of female voice in the primary sources. There was only one primary source that interpreted how women felt about this transition, Elizabeth Drinker, and her views reinforce the use of male physicians. Was there an active female resistance to using male physicians? What I found even more interesting were the economic implications of the transition; families were dishing out the "12 to $15 minimum fee" (85) in 1806 in order to increase the likelihood of a safe delivery. Two-hundred years ago this probably would have been a significant amount of money and leaves me with the impression that families were openly and willingly turning to male doctors for childbirth assistance. Finally, I found it strange that the author did not mention changing mortality rates among women giving birth. I would think this too would be a factor in the transition out of using midwives. -Seth Mintzer<br />
<br />
I thought this article was very interesting. When I read about Cotton Mather's pamphlet he gave to midwives for distribution it made me laugh. He wrote that "your death has entered into you" and basically described pregnancy as a lethal condition. I understand that a lot of women died in childbirth but it's hard to believe that Mather actually distributed that pamphlet. Was he trying to scare the local women out of having children? I'm pretty sure if I was a woman at this time, and someone gave me the pamphlet, I would have been scared to death. Especially since the most women were uneducated and even those that were educated probably knew little to nothing about obsterics. -Katelyn LEase<br />
<br />
== Headline text ==</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T03:07:33Z<p>Mturner: /* Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 */</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 />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<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 />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<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 />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<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 />
When I was reading this passage I kind of felt like she was justifying the things that had gone wrong in her life, and almost making exucses for God. It seemed as though she was trying to make sense of the times when she felt she got the short end of the stick, for example, when she coudln't conceive for several years, or when she had poor health. It's as if she were trying to talk herself into thinking that God had a purpose in it all, and that it wasn't just random bad luck. I felt sorry for her in a way.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:01, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<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 />
<br />
After reading the trial transcripts, I was almost positive that an indiscretion had taken place between Elizabeth Godman and Mr. Bishop. It sounded like there might have been an affair, and in order to save himself from the wrath of his wife, he accused Godman of being a witch. Of course, I'm sure that nobody had to twist Mrs. Bishop's arm about accusing Godman of being a witch. I think there was definately some foul play and jealousy at hand. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:06, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<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 />
I found it interesting in the trial of Bridget Bishop (as well as other witchcraft trials) one of the big arguments for her to be a witch was the illness and death of Children. That a witch is shown to be the very opposite of the proper woman (who gives birth to children) she therefore it connected with the deaths or illnesses of children. She is the corrupted version of the perfect wife, mother, and woman inverting all morality and virtue. She is often also physically corrupted as in Bishops case upon examination they found a “preternatural teat” that ceased to exist but a few short hours later. With Halloween coming upon us soon, it is interesting to think about how these trials may have affected our ideas of such a perverted creature and her connection to the inverted holiday. -- Elyse Lawrence<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 />
I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old. -- Taylor Brann<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<br />
<br />
I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry. Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T03:06:02Z<p>Mturner: /* Elizabeth Godman lawsuit (1653); Elizabeth Godman tried for witchcraft, 1655 */</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 />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<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 />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<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 />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<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 />
When I was reading this passage I kind of felt like she was justifying the things that had gone wrong in her life, and almost making exucses for God. It seemed as though she was trying to make sense of the times when she felt she got the short end of the stick, for example, when she coudln't conceive for several years, or when she had poor health. It's as if she were trying to talk herself into thinking that God had a purpose in it all, and that it wasn't just random bad luck. I felt sorry for her in a way.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:01, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<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 />
<br />
After reading the trial transcripts, I was almost positive that an indiscretion had taken place between Elizabeth Godman and Mr. Bishop. It sounded liek there might have been an affair, and in order to save himself from the wrath of his wife, he accused her of being a witch. Of course, I'm sure that nobody had to twist Mrs. Bishop's arm about accusing Godman of being a witch. I think there was definately some foul play at hand. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:06, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<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 />
I found it interesting in the trial of Bridget Bishop (as well as other witchcraft trials) one of the big arguments for her to be a witch was the illness and death of Children. That a witch is shown to be the very opposite of the proper woman (who gives birth to children) she therefore it connected with the deaths or illnesses of children. She is the corrupted version of the perfect wife, mother, and woman inverting all morality and virtue. She is often also physically corrupted as in Bishops case upon examination they found a “preternatural teat” that ceased to exist but a few short hours later. With Halloween coming upon us soon, it is interesting to think about how these trials may have affected our ideas of such a perverted creature and her connection to the inverted holiday. -- Elyse Lawrence<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 />
I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old. -- Taylor Brann<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<br />
<br />
I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry. Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_4_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 4 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-17T03:01:39Z<p>Mturner: /* Narrative of Old Elizabeth, published in 1863 when she was 97, about her religious conversion in the 1770s. */</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 />
I was surpised in this article that Anne Bradstreet considered whether the Catholic doctrine was right when she herself was a Puritan (she decides to stick with her Puritan beliefs) but that moment of questioning was interesting to me, especially given the violent history that Catholics and Protestants had in the previous century and the mistrust that each side had for the other. - Will Hechmer<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 />
The transcript of Anne Hutchinson’s trial had me wondering about the recording techniques of the 17th century. How did they go about making courtroom transcripts? It’s not like they had recording equipment. I really doubt anyone could have written fast enough to keep up with everything everyone was saying. You’d have to be the Jesse Owens of scribes to keep up with some of those long monologues of Anne Hutchinson. Did they have several people recording at the same time? Or maybe the transcriber just asked everyone to speak really slowly? All kidding aside, that brings up issues of how accurate and trustworthy these trial records are. -- Taylor Brann<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 />
Although the Quakers did give women a more active role, it seemed like the women's meetings were more for the purpose of policing each other. They had the "authority" to "Judge" and "Condemn" those who had done something wrong. So, were all of these matters dealt with just among the women's meetings or were there some offenses that were brought before the men's and women's meetings jointly? There is also a reference to the "new Covenant." Is this a distinct belief difference as opposed to the "covenant of works" (referred to in Anne Hutchinson's trial)? -Nancy Lee<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 />
When I was reading this passage I kind of felt like she was justifying the things that had gone wrong in her life, and almost making exucses for God. It seemed as though she was trying to make sense of the times when she felt she got the short end of the stick, for example, when she coudln't conceive for several years, or when she had poor health. It's as if she were trying to talk herself into thinking that God had a purpose in it all, and that it wasn't just random bad luck. I felt sorry for her in a way.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 21:01, 16 September 2009 (MDT)<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 />
I found it interesting in the trial of Bridget Bishop (as well as other witchcraft trials) one of the big arguments for her to be a witch was the illness and death of Children. That a witch is shown to be the very opposite of the proper woman (who gives birth to children) she therefore it connected with the deaths or illnesses of children. She is the corrupted version of the perfect wife, mother, and woman inverting all morality and virtue. She is often also physically corrupted as in Bishops case upon examination they found a “preternatural teat” that ceased to exist but a few short hours later. With Halloween coming upon us soon, it is interesting to think about how these trials may have affected our ideas of such a perverted creature and her connection to the inverted holiday. -- Elyse Lawrence<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 />
I thought it was a bit odd the way some of the work assignments were referred to. The reference "all the plows...were plowing the Corn and the Hoes weeding it" seems like the people doing the work were just pieces of equipment. - Nancy Lee<br />
<br />
I found George Washington’s listing his slaves to be rather interesting. He seemed to be very much aware of all of them. He knew all of their names, though of course the majority had no surnames, and jobs. He also knew which children went with what parent, listed by their mother not father, and how old these children were. Were all slave owners so knowledgeable of their slaves? Or was this common practice, along the lines of knowing all the details of your property? It did seem like GW was simply cataloging his property more than anything, particularly when he listed some slaves as blind, lame, or old. -- Taylor Brann<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<br />
<br />
I thought this article on Women’s work in Colonial Philadelphia was very interesting as we often do not think of the roles women played being connected to independently generating money during this colonial period. I think the key phrase from this section is on page 98 where the author states that a problem with assuming women’s sole source of income was that it “casts women as only passive recipients of wealth, rather than generators of wealth.” Indeed the author goes about disproving this idea showing how women were capable of generating their own income capable of sustaining them and their families upon the death of their husbands or if they chose never to marry. Work consisted of gender specific works, such as was connected with the family and home, and nongender specific works that could be picked up from the trade of husband or father. Whichever the case, this article shows women as being productive citizens, contributing to their own wealth as well as that of their community and doing so, it is an important contribution to the study of women in colonial America. -- Elyse Lawrence</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-10T00:47:57Z<p>Mturner: /* Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society. In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. It’s no wonder why so many women ran away. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English colonists, I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native Americans' way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure, all of which had been elements of Native American life that the colonists had previously thought to be unnatural.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this? Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? Nick J<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive. Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
One thing to keep in mind is that Susanna Wesley rules may not have reflected that of the majority of people living in England at the time. The reading says that she is from a place called Lincolnshire, from which many Puritans migrated. I think that her "rules" made sense for her particular lifestyle, but I also think that some of the ideas that Wesley, and the Puritans were indoctoring into their children may not have been condusive to the mission of colonization. After all, at a time when people are trying to settle a new area, and are faced with unfamiliar lands, it seems that for practical purposes they should have encouraged free thinking, imagination, and ingenuity from their youth. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:55, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
I am completely shocked by some of these laws. Basically, if I understood the readings correctly, freewomen who had children with slaves, could then be subject to slavery herself. Is that right? I found it particularly disturbing that under the Virginia, 1691 law, if a woman has a bastard, half negro child, then she owes the church to which she belongs a fine of 15 pounds. Also, she has to serve time as a slave at the discretion of the church, and her child is at the discretion/mercy of the church as well. I thought this was completely illogical, unethical, and against everything moral that I know in life. I think that once again, these laws are a reflection of the FEAR that white men have, of women and people of different ethnicities than their own. How lame!--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 18:47, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured. I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly. The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school. -Megan W.</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-09T23:55:49Z<p>Mturner: /* Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society. In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. It’s no wonder why so many women ran away. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English colonists, I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native Americans' way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure, all of which had been elements of Native American life that the colonists had previously thought to be unnatural.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this? Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? Nick J<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive. Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
One thing to keep in mind is that Susanna Wesley rules may not have reflected that of the majority of people living in England at the time. The reading says that she is from a place called Lincolnshire, from which many Puritans migrated. I think that her "rules" made sense for her particular lifestyle, but I also think that some of the ideas that Wesley, and the Puritans were indoctoring into their children may not have been condusive to the mission of colonization. After all, at a time when people are trying to settle a new area, and are faced with unfamiliar lands, it seems that for practical purposes they should have encouraged free thinking, imagination, and ingenuity from their youth. --[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:55, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured. I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly. The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school. -Megan W.</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-09T23:46:42Z<p>Mturner: /* Overarching/comparative comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society. In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. It’s no wonder why so many women ran away. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English colonists, I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native Americans' way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure, all of which had been elements of Native American life that the colonists had previously thought to be unnatural.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this? Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? Nick J<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive. Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured. I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly. The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school. -Megan W.</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_3_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 3 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-09T23:44:24Z<p>Mturner: /* Overarching/comparative comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching/comparative comments ==<br />
<br />
<br />
In the Nancy Woloch reading I found the use of the family to be very functional to the colonizers, and it changed greatly through time based off of necessity. This meant major changes in the placement of women in society. In 1672 family was a “fundamental economic unit” (25) and meant the health of the colony. Due to the focus on family harmony, women were able to remarry and create new homes that would be more beneficial to society. Furthermore, men often left their estates to their spouse. This meant that women had a certain amount of power. By 1712, the power of women was minimized and a hierarchy among the family unit arose where men were on top, then women, followed by male children and female children. At this time, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, and in return, the husbands would treat the women as a piece of themselves. Divorce was rare. By 1815, women had virtually no power. Divorce was almost non-existent and “married women had no independent legal existence, property rights, or control over their children”(42). Women’s roles changed quickly based off of what function the family needed to have at that particular time. It’s no wonder why so many women ran away. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
After spending some time last week learning about the lifestyles of the Native American women, through the lense of the somewhat bias English settlers, I found it interesting this week to see that as the settlers faced certain unfamiliar obstacles in their new surroundings, they adapted to many of the Native American's way of life. It almost seems like once they had to roll their sleeves up and actually make a living for themselves here, they realized that at times-- women must tend the field, people must marry several times, and community networks become the heart of the social structure.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Katherine Kish Sklar article, “To Use her as His Wife” ==<br />
<br />
It is stated on page 80 that Martha Root pushed her claim against Elisha even though her actions incurred further risks to her reputation and hence to her future ability to marry. So why would she do this? Another question that came up in the reading was the issue of marriage. Would Martha have even wanted to marry Elisha after he ruined her reputation? --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Benjamin Wadsworth, 1712 – Well-Ordered Family ==<br />
Wadsworth begins by talking about how a husband and a wife are supposed to love each other, take care of each other when they are sick..etc. I was surprised when I first read this because it seemed almost like an equal relationship. Of course, then I read the part about the husband being the wife's head and that he is meant to govern over her. Wadsworth says that the "husband's government ought to be gentle and easy, and the wife's obedience ready and cheerful". I think Wadsworth's choice of words is important. He makes it sound that like the husbands gently guide the wives along and that the wives are happy to be told what to do. The influence of religion on married life is very evident. Quarelling is "the Devil's work" and it dishonors God. Today, it's pretty clear that every married couple argues sometimes and that doesn't mean you are doing the "devil's work". -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I agree with Katelyn. When I first read this, it seemed as if he were counting men and women to be (almost) the same, then he pulls the whole, "man is the woman's head" thing. The quote that really caught my eye was when he was talking to women and said, "God has made him (husband), your head, and set him above you, and made it your duty to love and revere him." So, there is a STRONG implication that men ruling women is a religious decree and anyone who were to break that would then be unholy.-Kristina.S.<br />
<br />
I agree with both of the comments made by Katelyn and Kristina, the article by Wadsworth really struck me. The quote on page 27 stuck out "[f]amily, whatever its liabilities, remained the most important social institution..." Women could not do anything outside of the family, were required to fall back on it, and let her husband have complete rule over her and if he died before her, the eldest son took over the estate. It was a never-ending cycle once a woman was married that she was never to have control over her mind/body/land/or any other asset. Religion was a much stronger contributing factor in those days, but did God really approve of a women becoming completely inferior to her husband? I do not think that is written in the Bible, so did colonists relate problems back to Adam and Eve instead? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments made about the Husbands and Wives Article written by Benjamin Wadsworth. At the very beginning it seems that men and women are equal by saying that there love is mutual and it should be performed by each and overall that they both needed to work together in order to have a good family. Then Wadsworth’s views turn completely around by saying “the husband is called the head of the woman” and that they ought to be under their husband’s government. Did all Puritan men around this time feel the same way as Wadsworth? Nick J<br />
<br />
== Susanna Wesley, 1732, Evangelical Child-Rearing ==<br />
The letter from Susanna Wesley was by far the most impressionable reading, to me, this week. The best way for me to put it is that it really freaked me out. I suppose it is because her methods of child-rearing were a bit alien to the methods of the typical American family today. Yet, I actually found it interesting that I did see some similarities :(on the bottom of page 32) she talks about rewarding children for doing good things, which I think is a relatively good policy. Throughout the reading I felt like she was talking about some well trained dogs that she had, not her children. It was literally as if she were training pets. A particular sentence caught my eye, on page 32, where she said "That civil behavior which made them admired when they were at home by all who saw them was in a great measure lost,..." I can just imagine her friends coming over for lunch one day and commenting on how well trained her children are. Now, I am all for well behaved children, but the methods by which she makes them so well behaved seems a little too excessive. They are not allowed to be kids. They are adults by the time they are old enough to walk. Was this a typical religious family upbringing in the 1700's?-Kristina .S.<br />
<br />
Susanna Wesley has some pretty interesting instructions of how to raise children. I know that the Puritans thought that children were born evil and needed to be taught right and wrong but I think her methods were rather excessive. Before a child is one year old they were taught to "fear the rod". We would call beating children child abuse. I did not like her strict routine and none of us would ever survive if we had to live in that time now. The only part I liked about her essay was how she thought girls should be able to read above all other things. I think that is very important for girls especially in a time period where many could not read. LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Eliza Pinckney, 1750s, To Improve in Every Virtue ==<br />
Eliza Pinckney's list of resolutions explains a lot about all of the roles that women were expected to fill in early America. Her first few resolutions are religious. She wanted to be a better Christian and to trust in God. Some of her other resolutions seem similar to many common resolutions today. When she says she wants "to be decent but frugal in my own expences", she sounds like many women who vow to stop spending so much money on themselves. She also vows to be a better wife, mother, daughter, and friend. These resolutions are probably the New Year's resolutions of women today. I think it was important to read the piece by Pinckney. It shows all of the different roles that women are expected to fill, many of which are still relevant today.- Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I liked the document by Eliza Pinckney. It showcased one woman's focus in her life during the eighteenth-century. Along with other women of the time who lived in the colonies, Pinckney devoted most of her time and attention to her family. Each year she addressed the fact that her husband, children, and relatives were very important to her and wanted to do and be everything she could for them. Today, women and men alike, make resolutions to become a better wife, mother, father, or brother. I thought it was interesting that Pinckney's actions paralleled those that can be seen today in the twenty first century. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Esther Burr, 1756-57, Tied hand and foot ==<br />
In Esther Burr's journal you can see the basis she has in Puritan traditions. She relies on her faith, family, and her social network of friends. She refers to doing a lot of spinning, taking care of her children and awaiting her husband arrival from trips. She implicates in her letter to her friend that she must marry and not wait so long to do so. Also, at the same time she's not afraid to share her opinion, not that she does it that often. She even astonishes herself when she makes a comment about what Mr. Ewing says about women and friendships. She was not afraid to hold her tongue "I talked him quite silent." The men around her were either appalled by her comments or surprised that she had an opinion on the idea of women not being capable of having friendships. The perception that men had of women was very different then. I think there were women in society (especially those from the elite) that were very intellectual. Were they afraid to show their intellectual abilities in public around males in society? -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== Abigail Bailey, 1815, Abominable Wickedness ==<br />
Abigail Bailey's memoir was very interesting to read. Laws intended for men and women did not always protect women. Probably not in this case either. Abigail admits her loyalties to her husband but when she realizes her husband is having an incestuous realtionship with their daughter she is unable to ignore it. She confronts him and threatens to take him to justice. She justifies her actions by saying to him that she is "acting on principle and with mature consideration." She knew that if her daughter did not testify against her father that it would be very hard to prove what he had done. She probably felt that one would believe her. Afterall, Abigail was a woman and women should not speak out against their husbands. The value of a man's word over a womans was not the same then. Instead of putting her daughter through the ridicule of the community she confronts her husband. She threatens to use the process of the law to scare him. She believes that the legal system will not uphold the law for her. Abigail uses the one power she does have over her husband - she refuses to be intimate with him. <br />
-Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
== New Spain’s (New Mexico’s) moral code as dictated by the Spanish Crown in 1752 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Laws on Slave Descent in VA and MD, 1662, 1664, 1691, 1692 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Skilled slaves in Maryland, 1748-1763, Maryland Gazette ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Complaint of Elizabeth Sprigs, indentured servant, 1756 ==<br />
Elizabeth's Sprigs complaint to her father is pretty sad. I am not sure if all she says is true. She might be exaggerating bu then again maybe she is not. I really wish we knew what she did to get her father to throw her on a ship where she was indentured. I felt terrible for her as she asks for clothes and not something else she may have wanted. The short but vivid description really worked and if i were her father I would send her the clothes if not paying out so she would not be indentured. I never really thought about being indentured could be as bad as being a slave. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Apprenticeship in PA, 1771-1773, Record of Indentures ==<br />
The list of indentures of 1771-1773 was interesting to read. The document mentioned that women apprenticeship was different than that of young men, which was unsurprising. Most of the work and skills learned by the females was housewifery, to read the bible, or write legibly. The entries listed were of women whose terms were anywhere between three to fourteen years. I thought that was a very long time. One example is of a woman named Abigail Adams, whose term was 14 years and one month, was taught to read the bible, write legibly, learn multiplication, and houswifery. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Advertisements, Gazettes of VA, PA, SC, NY – 1751-1776 ==<br />
I was surprised that there were so many advertisements for schools for young women. I found the ad for Mrs. Duneau's boarding school in South Carolina very interesting. Most of the other ads mentioned teaching needlework to the young ladies, but that was one of the only subjects that was taught. However, Mrs. Duneau's school taught French, English, math, geography, writing, and of course, needlework. I was also surprised that many of the school's included gentlemen and young women in their ads. This is probably because many of the schools were opened and operated by women. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the advertisements pretty interesting. I am from Williamsburg so had seen some advertisements for schools for young women before; learning to sew, how to become a proper lady, housewifery, etc, but never had seen one for a young man. I knew they had apprenticeships but did not know they attended schools like women did. I also found interesting how different the ad for a school was compared to that of finding a slave, both adverstisements are looking for people and how women were referred to in a slave ad compared to wanting a young woman, "proper young lady" for a school. -Megan W.</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T13:22:21Z<p>Mturner: /* Samuel de Champlain, 1616 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: '''the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this.''' It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. '''Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today?''' Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed.''' As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. '''What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. '''I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders.''' Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
'''John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes''' though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. '''What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion.''' Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. '''This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. ''' - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
'''I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson.''' Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. '''I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle.''' Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. '''I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind.''' Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
'''The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity.''' Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
'''Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives.''' It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Did anyone get the impression that maybe there was a hint of jealousy among the Europeans when it came to the courtship of Native Americans? Perhaps they resented being so sexual restricted within their own communities, and felt that the only proper way to address those feelings were to pass negative judgments upon a culture they could not understand. After all, doesn't our culture resemble the pre-colonial Native Americans when it comes to modern day dating and marriage? Now days, it practically unheard of to marry a person you have not already lived with for a while. When a couple splits, the children usually go with the mother, or whoever is the more secure "bread winner." American's today divorce over the slightest irreconcilable differences, and there is little to no stigma on divorcees anymore, they way there had been in the past. Men court women with expensive gifts, and women usually turn to their family and network or "village" of best friends to help them decide if they should marry a man. It is really not much different from how the Native American's approached marriage several hundred years ago. So, I suppose that after all the Europeans effort to assimilate Native Americans into their way of life, modern day Americans have assimilated to the Native American way of life.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 07:22, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
I can't say that I was surprised to read the 1747 letter written by Mary Musgrove, as historical evidence often shows that, the European settlers and traders often "went back" or renigged on promises, treaties, and debts that were made to the Native Americans. However, I did find the format of her letter interesting. Instead of just coming right out and asking for what she wants, she diligently lists all of the qualifying reasons why she is owed respect and currency first, and then she gets around to asking for what she wants secondly. It all sounded like something I would imagine a lawyer to do. Perhaps just saying "hey you owe me money" would not have sufficed. It's tragic that all of that explanation and justification was warranted, to seek out something that she and/or the people she represented were due anyways.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:36, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. '''Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son?''' - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. '''Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant.''' In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. '''I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit''' and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
'''The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life'''. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
'''In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women.''' The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
'''I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact.''' Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck<br />
<br />
I also found the double standard in the way Sarah Ahhaton was treated compared to both her husband and Joseph interesting -- and, not surprising.''' So, why did this happen? How did the change in the way Native American women and men viewed marriage occur? Were there some tribes who were more resistant to this than others? If so, why?''' -Nancy Lee</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T11:36:02Z<p>Mturner: /* Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this. It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders. Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson. Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle. Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind. Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity. Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives. It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
I can't say that I was surprised to read the 1747 letter written by Mary Musgrove, as historical evidence often shows that, the European settlers and traders often "went back" or renigged on promises, treaties, and debts that were made to the Native Americans. However, I did find the format of her letter interesting. Instead of just coming right out and asking for what she wants, she diligently lists all of the qualifying reasons why she is owed respect and currency first, and then she gets around to asking for what she wants secondly. It all sounded like something I would imagine a lawyer to do. Perhaps just saying "hey you owe me money" would not have sufficed. It's tragic that all of that explanation and justification was warranted, to seek out something that she and/or the people she represented were due anyways.--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:36, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant. In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women. The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact. Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T11:26:12Z<p>Mturner: /* Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this. It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I believe that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders. Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson. Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle. Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind. Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity. Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives. It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant. In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women. The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact. Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T11:25:55Z<p>Mturner: /* Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this. It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I beleive that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the differences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinance that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders. Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson. Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle. Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind. Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity. Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives. It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant. In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women. The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact. Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T11:24:04Z<p>Mturner: /* Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this. It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
---I beleive that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the diffences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinece that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a especially the woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).--[[User:Mturner|Mary Turner]] 05:24, 3 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders. Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson. Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle. Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind. Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity. Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives. It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant. In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women. The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact. Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_2_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 2 Questions/Comments-327 092009-09-03T11:22:11Z<p>Mturner: /* Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cross-reading Questions -- These are particularly important... ==<br />
<br />
Just and observation I've made: the readings in Woloch about the rules and conduct that men and women should follow is a striking resemblence to social rules set forth by Confucius and his followers in China several hundred years prior to this. It just seems interesting to me that although the Europeans at this time always thought of themselves as superior to other peoples and cultures, that people in China hundreds of years before had already discussed and implemented these social rules. - Will Hechmer<br />
<br />
For the readings this week I came up with a question that related throughout all of the texts:<br />
1. Why did Native American women's roles offend the Europeans and do we think it still would today? Or have the perceptions the Europeans had of women shape women's traditional roles today?<br />
<br />
I beleive that the Europeans were offended primarily due to the diffences in marital practices. First, the Native Americans had sexual relations with "potential" spouses BEFORE they were to be married. This violated a religious practice of pre-marital abstinece that Europeans followed. Christians in particular beleive that a especially the woman should be pure and virginal at the time of marriage. Second, it offened Europeans that the Native Americans could "divorce" or change partners so readily. As John Heckwelder notes, "Marriage among the Indians are not, as with us, contracted for life" (MP pg. 30).<br />
<br />
A common feature I noticed within the captive stories and whether they were able to adjust to their new lives appears to be their age and the roles in which they assumed. As with Mary Jemison and also John Tanner, they were both young without attachments, and could easily adapt into their new lives as made easier by being fully adopted into the tribe as a sister / daughter and son / brother. In the case of Mary R, she was a middle aged woman, set in her ways, having a husband back home as well as a church, friends, and a role within American society in which she was part of. These differences appear to have an effect on how the captives adjust to their new lives or not in these particular sources, and makes me wonder if this could be common to others as well or if there are other factors that were missed. – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Roger Williams Remarks on Narragansett women – 1643 ==<br />
<br />
After reading the Roger Williams little excerpt about him and his findings on the language and the people on the Narragansett women, I am left wondering how does he seem to have such a different view than other Europeans of his time. He believes that the land belonds to the Native Americas; he even tries to live and learn from them, to study them, even going so far as to publish a dictionary on their language arranged topically. What makes his perspective so different from the other European documentations and studies? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
While reading Roger Williams' Narragansett Women, I noticed that his description of the labor that the females did was, in his mind, much more challenging than described by John Heckewelder and Mary Jemison. I also noticed a parallel between Mary Rowlandson and Williams opinion that as Williams put it, "Indian women has escaped Gods curse on Eve." Of course Rowlandson described these feeling in a negative light but the idea was certainly the same. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
== John Heckewelder’s 1819, Women’s Lives among the Delaware ==<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder describes the Native American women in Delaware. He comments about the differences and some of the aspects of lives between the Native Americans' lifestyles and the Europeans'. Among them are marriages: marriages among the Indians are not contracted for life. He also mentions the varying work men and women have. Men construct the house in which they are to live in, hunts, traps. Women take care of the home, sometimes become their husband's helpmate while he is hunting, tills the ground, gets the firewood, and pounds the corn in mortars. I think this group of Native American women followed the same kind of pattern that most European women followed at the time and would not offend most outsiders. Heckewelder's notes may prove that because most of the duties of the Native American women were similar to that of European women, there was no real reason to be shocked or offended. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder’s description of Women’s Lives Among the Delaware is a much different account than from what other colonizers have described. While many Europeans have a biased view through ethnocentric eyes, Heckewelder seemed to empathize with the Native American way of life. Though I do think that he viewed his way of life as better and more civilized, he sees Native American way of life as understandable for a less civilized group. While he believes that Native American women’s work is difficult compared to women’s work in the civilized world, it is nothing compared to the work of the men. Heckewelder’s description of the women’s work as well as marriage practices seems much nicer than other descriptions from onlookers of the time who had a cynical view. The Native American family/societal structure seems like a nice way for women to live, to work cheerfully, to raise families, and to have the ability to leave when unhappy. I wonder if it is because John Heckewelder was able to live among the Indians for 15 years that he was able to see the true side of Native American life, rather then traders whose observations were short lived and distant. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder's description of a woman's role in society is still seen through a Europeans eyes though I agree with Erin that it was less so then other European observers it is still bias. He still believes that women have no power where men have all the power in society. I liked that he grasped the fact that the women did not think they were being worked like slaves by farming. I would also like to note that Heckewelder when talking about marriages only mentioned that women will please her husband so that he will not leave her but said nothing about men pleasing their wives. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
John Heckewelder wrote of the differences in the daily lives of the men and women of the tribe he saw. What struck me most was particularly the word choice “The husband may put away his wife whenever he pleases, and the woman may in like manner abandon her husband.” Despite the fact that divorce was incredibly uncommon in Europe, he spoke of the men leaving their wife as if it was no big deal. Yet, he used the word /abandon/ when describing the wife leaving the husband which has a harsher connotation in my opinion. Another interesting thing I noticed was that Heckewelder said that the men’s job was to build the house which shows the Delaware tribe he was familiar with was not matrilocal- Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Pierre de Charlevoix, 1721, “Iroquois Women in Government” ==<br />
<br />
Pierre de Charlevoix's "Iroquois Women in Government" seemed on the surface to glorify the hierarchy which held women at the top but unraveled into an explanation of how Iroquois men only allowed the women to seem powerful. I wonder how much of Charlevoix's account was true and how much was a biased opinion based in Western ideals of the Patriarch Royalty. This piece prompts me to wonder if Charlevoix felt challenged by the reversal of gender empowerment and the implication and influence that could have on western women. - Caryn Levine<br />
<br />
In this article Pierre de Charlevoix writes about how Iroquois women had a substantial role in their government. Even though it was rare for women to rise to the position of chief, the role of chief was inherited through the matrilineal line. As we discussed in class the older women of the tribe could unseat male chiefs. The Iroquois women had a lot more political opportunities than their European and fellow Indian counterparts. After reading the article I wonder why Native American Women had less political opportunities than the Iroquois. Nick Jesionka <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Mary Rowlandson’s account (1681) and Mary Jemison’s account (1824) ==<br />
<br />
Also a topic I found important between the articles written by both "Mary's" were the differences/similarities of the women's experiences with the Eastern Woodland Native Americans. How each woman's experience varied based off tribe/age of capture/and release date (if released). -Megan<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in the role religion played in their experiences, especially Mary Rowlandson. Her faith seemed to justify her experience, which in turn strengthened her sense of righteousness in the face of perceived barbarism. The topic of Christianity shaping the colonists' interactions with the native Americans seems important when looking at the overall experience. --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
Mary Jemison provided an interesting point of view in which she is not entirely dis fond of living with the Indians. She was captured and lived with the Seneca Iroquois tribe for many years. I think this is an interesting example of another way that Europeans, especially European men, were shocked with the Native Americans and their lifestyle. Many white female captives were treated humanely, took up the duties of the women of the tribe, and may have been treated more equally than if they returned to white society. This decision was confusing to most white men. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading both of these accounts. They were both so varied that it was interesting to see the differences and similarities among the captive's situations. The main issue that caught my eye in the Rowlandson account was the employ of God during her whole captive experience. She would quote the bible and see situations through a very thick religious lens. I particularly liked how she commented on page 18 that "strangely did the lord provide for them." Essentially, wondering why, if God was on her (and the English peoples) side then why was he letting the "heathens" live? It is something that she brings up a couple of times through her account. But, what I found interesting was that she believed her God was watching over the Natives, even though they were not Christians. (at least that was how it seemed to me)<br />
In the Jemison account, I really liked how she talked about the benefits for women living among the Seneca tribe. And how she even compared, on the bottom of page 21, the Native woman’s life to that of an English woman’s.-Kristia S.<br />
<br />
The accounts of Mary Rowlandson and Mary Jemison who were captured by Native Americans were the most interesting things I read. I though it was fascinating in Rowlandsons account how one minute they were going to bash her head in and the next her master was giving her water to wash with and being kind. Mary Jemison had a more positive account of Native Americans and I liked how she said Native Americans were only cruel to their enemies but to their friends they were wonderful. That is not so different from the Europeans who were also cruel to their enemies. --LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
<br />
== Samuel de Champlain, 1616 ==<br />
<br />
The Champlain and Heckewelder readings provide as interesting contrast in the interpretations by Europeans regarding Native Americans. About a hundred years separates their accounts. Champlain was, of course, an explorer, and Heckenwelder was a missionary trying to convert the Indians to Christianity. Champlain comments on the figures of the Indians, with a special interest in the women’s appearances, including the fact that “their breasts hang down hardly at all.” Truly an important thing to note. He also tends towards the idea that the men are lazy and the women do most of the work. Heckewelder doesn’t bother commenting on appearances, perhaps due to his being a missionary, but he labels the women’s work as “quickly and easily performed.” Their fatigue is not comparable to the tireless work of the hunting men. Though the interpretations differ on the view of labor and gender roles (which may be a result of the particular tribe they visited and at what time of the year), both accounts are influenced by European thinking. Champlain writes the men off as lazy and unmanly because they appear to lie around while the women do the farming. Heckewelder completely dismisses women’s work, putting forth that the families depend solely on the men’s hunting. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The article that Samuel de Champlain writes about Huron Women is good account of Native American Women. In the article he discusses the roles of women and men and how to him they women do a lot more work then the men do. He called the men lazy and described the women as really hard working and having most of the responsibilities. Overall it was a good account of the Huron tribe. Nick Jesionka<br />
<br />
Samuel de Champlain seemed to focus quite a bit of his attention on the courtship of the Natives. It was a big change compared to Europeans after all. He spoke of men and women running from cabin to cabin at night, enjoying whoever’s company they please. Then in the next paragraph he brings up the point of how the husband cannot be sure the child his wife bears is actually his. We talked about this in class, this is astonishing to Europeans as the “need” a male heir to carry on the family name or be the next in line to the throne (if they are royal.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Mary Musgrove assists the Georgians in Dealing with the Choctaws, 1734 & Mary Musgrove Seeks aid for past service from GA, 1747 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Captive John Tanner in 1830 ==<br />
<br />
The major thought that came to my mind while reading this was how multiple Native American women wanted a young white son. I feel that if the roles were reversed and a white woman had a male Native captive, there wouldn't be any other woman who would want him or any hostility regarding it. I find it interesting that he was so valued that Net-no-kwa was so interested in having him. Did they find the whites valuable or was he simply filling the role of a son? - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
== Father Le Jeune on necessity of teaching native women, 1633 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Native women resist Jesuits, 1640 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Wamponoag women of Martha’s Vineyard, 1727 ==<br />
<br />
The readings provided some thoughtful insights into changing Native American lifestyles as colonists worked towards converting them to Christianity. Particularly interesting to me was determining the reasons why some women were easily converted (at least outwardly) and some women were very resistant. In one reading a women runs away, not “wishing to obey her husband” in his desire to convert, risking harsh retribution, while in another reading the women were more receptive and more pious than the men. The second reading also gives some possible reasoning why these women were easier to convert. I think the biggest factor was that many of the women were young and unlikely to be set in their ways, and therefore more receptive to conversion. Sarah Ahhaton's story provides support for this, as there were older women who were seemingly more traditionalist and subversive in their approach towards the English. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
As shown in the Pious Wampanoag Women of Martha’s Vineyard and the Adultery Trial of Sarah Ahhaton, the Europeans seem to be pushing their own ideas of woman morality upon the Native Americans that can be compared to as was made example by Eve from the bible. As is with the Adultery Trial and some of the conversions, women appear very susceptible to have a lapse in judgment where their passionate natures take them over. However they are being held accountable for their actions in ways that men are not due to the notion of woman’s virtue and their job of upholding and demonstrating social morals. I think it is possible that the hope of the Europeans is that should the women at least be successfully converted, the society and future generations will then follow suit and could be as believed half of the battle being already won such as was with the husband of Hannah Tiler who “overcame his evil by her goodness” (MP- Christianity p. 24). – Elyse Lawrence<br />
<br />
== Sarah Ahhaton’s trial, 1668 ==<br />
<br />
The story of Sarah Ahhaton, a Native American woman, is one that shows the dynamics of the old, pre-colonization, ways of life and the new, Christian way of life. In looking at the French Explorer Samuel de Champlain’s description of the lives of Huron Women and Men in 1616, he describes the marriage practices of the Huron. In this pre-colonized society, marriage is much different than the “civilized” Europeans. Women and men were able to be intimate with different individuals without jealousy it was the standard practice. By 1668, when Sarah Ahhaton told her story of adultery, there was a change in marriage practices due to the influence of European colonizers and the spread of Christianity. The change in women’s roles in such a short period of time must have been difficult, and often confusing. In a society were women were highly regarded, their role shifted to one of subordination. –Erin Sanderson <br />
<br />
== Ann Marie Plane's essay ==<br />
In the account of Sarah Ahhaton’s adultery, I was really struck by the double standard for men and women. The rift in her marriage began when her husband, William, was not treating her very well and possibly having an affair of his own. Sarah turned herself in for her crime, but William’s position as an interpreter and Christian minister meant it would not have been difficult for English officials to investigate or correct his behaviors. This response is likely a result of English culture, which viewed women as lascivious and unable to control their desires. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
I like how Plane described Native American women as the group whose lives were possibly the most radically changed by European contact. Before contact, Native American gender relations involved a certain amount of give and take. Men may have held leadership positions, but much of their power depended on the support of women. After contact, the power held by men increased and the power held by women decreased. This deprived women of the means to defend themselves, for example, against an abusive husband, as in Sarah Ahhatan’s case. -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the account of Sarah Ahhatons adultery to be extremely poignant. It truly showed in my opinion some of the negative effects the colonists had on the native americans. In many Native American societies women were highly respected and held a firm place in society and were allowed more freedoms within marriage. Yet Sarahs treatment exhibited none of that kind of treatment. It was evident the influence that the Europeans had on there culture at that point was a negative one. I found the part of the essay where the author discusses the negative aspects of european culture that the Native Americans picked up extremely interesting. Although the protestant marriage was supposed to be a well founded joining of two people in the faith in a happy marriage, women were often treated poorly by there husbands. So even though the Native Americans are being taught by the Christian doctrine they picked up the bad habits of the Europeans instead of the good habits. Also the double standards between men and women were particularly evident in her account of the trial because Joseph who was also married and had committed adultery presumably faced no punishment whatsoever. In addition the claims of adultery that were supposedly committed by her husband didn't seem to have been investigated any further. -Emma Peck</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T02:02:46Z<p>Mturner: /* Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" */</p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.---[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T02:02:14Z<p>Mturner: /* Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” */</p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of women but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the midst of oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this essay sums up her argument well. "The study of women of color requires us to reexamine, challenge, and change those structures. Only then will we decolonize western history." Castañeda points out how women's history can easily fall into the same error as "traditional" history does by focusing on one specific sub-group within women's history, in this case middle-class white women. Studying women of color places the historian at intersect that challenges both gender and racial studies.<br />
I also wonder how many presumptions we make about western history because of white European influence. I love this notion of "decolonizing" western history and Castañeda only can begin to touch on some of the issues. How entrenched is our history in this "colonized" thinking?<br />
--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:48, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I believe that Castañeda brings out some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas in her essay about the struggle against both gender and race discrimination in history. However, I would have liked her to be more clear about who she includes and does not include when she says "women of color." Additionally, I would have liked her to also clarify who she means when she says "white." There are many European countries from which women in America have ancestry. I found it a bit hypocritical that a person writing about the need for history to include the lives of "women of color" more fairly, would continuously clump all "women of non-color" into one generlized category of "white." --[[User:Mturner|Mturner]] 20:02, 26 August 2009 (MDT)-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka</div>Mturnerhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Week_1_Questions/Comments-327_09Week 1 Questions/Comments-327 092009-08-27T01:45:39Z<p>Mturner: /* Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" */</p>
<hr />
<div>Enter your questions & comments on the readings below.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments that compare or contrast readings ==<br />
<br />
When reading “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, I was fascinated by how complex American Women’s History is just by looking at the separate words: “American” “Women’s” and “History.” Focusing on the “Women” aspect, Kate Haulman mainly looks at the word “women” in opposition to men and a lump category that all individuals who identify themselves as women fit into. Gisela Bock in “Challenging Dichotomies in Women’s History” looks at the word “women” in terms of the dichotomy of sex versus gender and how people identify themselves (“sex” being biological, “gender” being social). As I read Antonia Castañeda’s essay, “Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” the definition of “women” became even more complex in very important ways because she argues that you can’t look at women as one lump category, you have to reject the idea of a common sisterhood, because such a thing does not exist. Castañeda states, “Women’s gender experiences and definitions were as divers as the cultures from which they came”. Based off of these readings it is clear that no two scholars have the same definitions, so it is important to realize that categories and definitions are dynamic, changing with time and interpretation. –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that all the essays agree that American Women's History needs some changing. Whether it be the definition of the field, the ideas, the various aspects (sex, gender, race, political), they all agree it needs some reconstruction. Also, when they touched on the idea that not all women are in this "sisterhood," it brought a very good point. Many people lump in all women (regardless of race, class, country of origin) together in the same category, but you don't see that in other historical subjects. When Bock says "For too long, women have baked the cake and taken only the smallest to eat for themselves," to me it exemplifies the ever-lasting struggles women have in the "equality versus difference" arena. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
In both Bock(p.8) and Haulman's(p.4) piece they discuss how the history of women is not just about the oppression of them but the how the confinement to a certain sphere knitted them together and created a unique community. They were not just victims but actively shaped their own lives. What does this mean for studying women's history? How does seeing women as active in the oppression and not necessarily victims change our view of them? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 19:14, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Kate Haulman, Defining "American Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
I found Kate Haulman's essay Defining "American Women's History" to be interesting because it is a history of how historians thought about women in history. I never thought about the connotations of this phrase until she pointed it out. Being "American" is an identity that people have. She uses examples such as a textile worker, a Cherokee woman and an African American all of who defined being American differently. The word "women" brings up gender issues. She asks, " What are the consequences of identifying, or being positioned as a woman..." History in this phrase is a study of the past. Haulman thinks that studying woman's history can frame current debates about justice and human rights and I completely agree with that statement. The more we study women and their issues the more information we will have to help make an informed decision about issues that affect us today. - LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
As LeAnn and Erin noted, it is interesting how Haulman breaks down "American Women's History" into three separate ideas. Each person has a different connotation about each and when you place all three together, different people can assume different ideas about the subject. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The historiography by Haulman gives a nice overview of the field of American women’s history studies. It’s somewhat incredible, though not necessarily shocking, that studying women’s history is a rather recent development. Historians have been recounting history for thousands of years, but women’s contributions have been nothing more than a footnote, if even that, for most of that time. Particularly interesting to me was one of the dichotomies the Bock essay mentioned regarding nature vs culture. Women being perceived as “natural” and unchanging labeled them as uninteresting, which vindicated the lack of studying women, while men being perceived as products of culture apparently made them great subjects for study. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Leslie Alexander, “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander’s essay “Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American Women’s History” does a great job explaining where Black women fit into Women’s Studies and feminism as a whole. What I found out was that Black women don’t fit in at all. When I think of the feminist movement I think of white, upper middle class women. And after reading Alexander’s essay, this is not surprising. Women’s studies have historically been modeled based on white women and have largely left out other categories such as race and class. This model does not work for Black women. Alexander argues that it is impossible to analyze Black women based solely on their gender, and any model that tries to do so will fail. This is because Black women have a culture in which they identify themselves with their community. Alexander goes on to argue the importance of grappling with issues such as race, culture, community, and class to further understand the lives of women. While discussing this flaw in Women's Studies, Alexander pushes for scholars to analyze Black women “through their own eyes rather than through the lens of whiteness and oppression." –Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
I agree that Black women do not fit into Women's Studies. When I think of the feminist movement or even of the idea of women's history, I also picture white upper middle class women. I always remember learning about women's history, and then learning about African-American history, but the two never seemed to cross paths in lessons. I liked what Kate Haulman said in her essay, "A woman who self-identified as Chinese American...was not Chinese American four days out of the week and a woman the other three- she was always both." I think that idea could be used in the case of Black women, and for women of all other races. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
If the reading is on a women in American History then I think it does fit in this article. Black women are a part of American history no matter through a white person's point of of view or what class status they had. I do agree that the feminist movement would have mostly been white upper middle class but I also think that black women and white women each had their own social classes. I agree with Alexander that we should have scholars analyze the history of a black woman through their own eyes even though we know in the past that was not so easy. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In Leslie Alexander's essay, I was interested in the comments made about black women and their role in women's history. I had never really given much thought to the idea, but realized after reading that they do not appear to be a huge part in women's history; historians and people interested in history may just assume that this group of women are included butit may be important to have a bit more focus. Historians may want to homogenize them but in reality they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
Traditionally, the women’s rights movement discriminated against women of different races and classes. While I think Alexander makes a very important point that feminism has excluded many people, I wonder if she has overexaggerated or simplified African American women’s ambivalence towards the women’s rights movement. Alexander stated that feminism has had a “gender first” requirement. I personally know more about earlier feminism, such as the fight for suffrage, rather than later feminism, but I think one can make an argument that much of at least earlier feminism was “class first” rather than “gender first.” -Allison Luthern<br />
<br />
In agreement, I do say that traditionally I think most people think of American Women's History as an upper (maybe at time middle) class white subject. However, the problem lies in the fact that while there may be documentation (primary sources) on these white women due to their education and status levels, one might be hard-pressed to find the much lacking resources on Black women in history. For example, you may find plenty of information into the lives of a wealthy white woman plantation owner's wife, but you are not going to have the same time looking up her main house slave. I do believe the work should be done on elaborating American Women's History, it just seems that it would be a difficult task to take on. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
The Castañeda and Alexander readings examine contributions women of different ethnic/racial backgrounds have made to the women’s studies field outside of the traditional and dominate women’s liberation, white middle-class approach taken by most scholars. These historians have challenged overlooking race and class as an influence on women, as well as the idea of looking at women of color as little more than doubly oppressed victims. However, I feel that Leslie Alexander does a little of what she accuses other scholars of women’s history of doing: generalizing women’s experiences. She argues that “although feminism is a useful paradigm for White women, the attempt to force Black women into the same interpretive model in not applicable, and has prevented full understanding of Black women’s lives [19].” The feminism she seems to be describing is very much based in white middle-class ideology, so it’s just as inaccurate to try to fit ''all'' White women into this paradigm as it is to try to fit Black women into it. I would’ve liked to have seen a ''small'' acknowledgment of the complexities and cultural differences that exist not just between women of different races, but also between women of the same race, both Black and White. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== Antonia Castañeda’s“Women of Color and the Rewriting of Western History” ==<br />
<br />
== Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I found many interesting ideas in Gisela Bock's "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History". When she discussed the work versus family dichotomy, she mentioned that women have always worked. For many women, their family was their work. However, since they were not employed outside the home, or even compensated for their hard work, these women were not considered to be "workers". I like the term "paid versus unpaid work" better. -Katelyn Lease<br />
<br />
I think the part in this essay that really struck me was when Bock discusses "Work versus family." Personally, I don't understand the significance of re-labeling the roles that women, or men for that matter play at home. Family life is seperate from career work, and in my opinion should not constitute being called "work." Bock also mentions that the opposition to the "work versus family" issue is linked to low-paying jobs for women. Maybe I am misunderstanding her point, but is she suggesting that women should be compensated for housework, or perhaps that because women typically take on housework--they have handicapped themselves in the workplace, even in jobs that aren't related to domestic work? Also, I think that the term "working mother" is reserved for women working outside the home because there is a stigma on women who demand that their responsibilities as a mother be considered "work." It makes it seem as though they think their children and home are equivalent to a job and workplace, which is not usually an accepted concept in American society.-Mary Turner<br />
<br />
The piece on "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History," I found most interesting. There are obvious gender difference such as women can have babies and men cannot. But it is interesting because the roles of women and men have changed. I think that each individual is different and their expectations change for themselves and how they are viewed by those around them like family and society as a whole. -Marsha Himes<br />
<br />
In "Challenging Dichotomies in Women's History" Gisela Block writes about nature verses culture. I found it interesting that the activities of men were considered cultural and activities of women were natural. "Nature" in the context it was used undervalues the work women did. It just shows how far women have come since the 1970's. -LeAnn Taggart<br />
<br />
Gisela Bock's essay made me realize how intricate the study of women's history really is. Men and women are different in many ways including "working" at home or at the office and whether taking care of the family is considered work. The terms "sex" and "gender" are also scrutinized for one relates more to motherhood and being able to give birth than the other. I thought the dichotomies and the essay were interesting. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I found the essay about Women of Color and the rewriting of Western History very interesting for a couple of reasons. I thought that women of all races collaborated with one another during the Women’s movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As Castandeda states there were two different movements one being the women’s liberation movement and the second one being the third-world liberation movements. Women of color had a more difficult time obtaining equal rights than white middle class women because not only did they have to deal with the question of gender but also with race. -Nick Jesionka</div>Mturner 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