Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=SchangMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-19T03:47:16ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=328_2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments328 2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-01-14T04:44:58Z<p>Schang: </p>
<hr />
<div>So apparently I'm the first to comment, yay. In "Defining "American Women's History" I really liked the concept on page 6 that "if gender is created rather than assumed... then so too is race, ethinicity, health, age, work, social status, sexuality, and so on." I found it interesting to think about Women's history in that sense especially when correlated with the later readings on black women in the United States and their association with both (what is considered to be) an "inferior" race AND gender and how that affects them. --SSellers<br />
<br />
Kind of going along with the first statement, it was interesting to see that some historians balk at including race, class, etc., in women's history because they seem to feel that it will ultimately remove the gender aspect from the discipline in favor of a focus on race or another variable. Yet if you're going to study women, don't you have to study real women's lives, as complex or as multifaceted as they may be? To claim that all women can be put into the same category risks losing the richness of understanding that comes with exploring the differences as well as the similarities among groups or individuals, as Leslie M. Alexander points out. And it would also turn many people away from studying the subject, just as women can feel excluded by traditional, male-focused history. -MMackey<br />
<br />
It also seems like a Catch-22 to be in this course now. Learning about Women's history separate from "men's" history empowers the women by allowing them to be a distinct categorization, but also segregates Women's history and makes it seemingly inferior to Men's history. I have no idea where to stand on the separation... --SSellers<br />
<br />
In response to SSellers, I think it is important to remember that up until recently, history has been dominated by men because men were the ones who were literate. Therefore, history came from the male's perspective. I am not sure if that makes women's history inferior, just harder because it takes deeper analysis to find where women fit into history and how they felt. I mean, men and women share the same history. Their roles within it, however, were different and it takes a women's studies course to discover where women fit into the world during any given time. --Erin Sanderson<br />
<br />
Also commenting on SSellers and in agreement with Erin, just because women's history is a somewhat new classification of history, doesn't mean its "inferior." Studied, accepted history is in the eyes and pens of white, European men. What we study and learn starting in kindergarten is what they (those white men) wanted us to know about their lives and times. Studying women's history, or any other classification of history (black, native american, chinese, etc.) isn't segregating any one group. You can't learn about anything by looking at it strictly in isolation. You must take these primary sources and examine them for hidden meanings, context, perspectives, goals, etc. In this course we are not simply learning what women did, we are learning what they did in comparison to what was going on in the rest of the country and population, and what was expected previously and currently of them. (I don't know if being in the first half of this class has made me biased, but there ya go!!) - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
I think that these are very interesting comments on the issue of inferiority between men's and women's history. Is men's history be superior because there is more written information, because certain historical men had larger political influence than most women did, or because of how history is taught today? I know we can't really understand women's history without looking at men's history, but couldn't the same be said for men's history? - J Rowley<br />
<br />
The debate between "equality" and "difference" in terms of women in Gisela Bock's article stood out to me as well. The groups in support of both singular approaches have valid points, but I would say that they are not mutually exclusive. The knee-jerk reaction is often that different equals inferior or bad, but I think its possible to acknowledge something as different without demeaning it. Maybe it ultimately comes down to the fact that every individual is different, so determining and highlighting some great difference women supposedly possess or some manly standard women should be aiming for seems silly in light of how varied women, and men, are. -MMackey<br />
<br />
Overall in this reading, I was interested in how each author defined women. “Definining ‘American Women’s History'” by Kate Haulman, shows 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 />
I agree with Erin about how Kate Haulman showed the complexity of women's history. It isn't enough jut to focus on women's history as a whole, and I think that is interesting. In any other facet of historical study, we would focus on events as a whole, such as wars. But with women in history, it is different. I never realized how large women's history is, until I broke it down into its smaller categories. Each woman experienced different things, but there are so many factors that play into the different experiences, such as class, race, religion, age, and even time period they lived in. Who knew something so general like women's history could turn out to be complex? -- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I found the changing dynamics of women's history to be incredibly interesting. According to Kate Haulman, in the past only "notable women" were written about. Even being characterized as a "notable woman" was defined by male terms in a male dominated society. However, there was a great shift in the study of women from these notable women to the everyday woman. Even so, this study of the everyday woman was still dominated by male terms, as Gisela Bock notes. All of women's activities were judged by the male standard, which was deemed valuable. The spheres that the study of women were divided into, suck as Public vs. Private, were still male dominated. It seems that males have dominated almost every aspect of women's history. Males are the standard upon which women are judged, they decide which women are important enough to be studied, and they define all spheres of the women's lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Anna Holman's comment above. It was fascinating to read about the evolution of women's history and made me wonder how it will continue to evolve in the future. Hopefully as we move forward, women's history will be able to be studied without male domination and we can define ourselves. -- Kokeefe<br />
<br />
Adding onto Erin Sanderson's statement, I found it interesting how Kate Haulman stated that gender was created and fluid. It is fascinating to understand how people identify with the term "woman", and how it intersects the other aspects of their identity, such as their unique race and ethnicity. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As I was reading, I was intrigued by Kate Haulman's statement about the definition of "American." It did seem like the term would be uncomplicated, simply refering to residents of the United States. The fact that "American" could refer (maybe, should refer) to anyone in the Americas was something I had never considered before. --Kokeefe<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how Kate Haulman pointed out that women's history started out focused on notable women, as if they suitably represented other women of their time. Yet, these women were, and are, often notable because they either went against the norms of society to accomplish something great for women or society in general. Obviously, that is not something most women do. And then, fo course, one has to consider how much is being seen from a male's point of view. So, I definitely believe it is important to study all kinds of women, not just notable figures, in order to get a more realistic picture of women throughout history. -- CBrau<br />
<br />
In accumulating the readings, I found that they similarly shared underlying factors. Those factors being race and ethnicity, gender, class, and locality. What I thought was interesting was that even though race and gender do not change, but perspectives towards race and gender do change over time. Naturally writings reflect changes in one’s perspective. --MHimes <br />
<br />
I found the same similarities of race, class, culture, community, and sexual orientation throughout the reading. All these factors seem to be the cornerstone for uncovering women's history. I agree with MHimes that perspectives do change over time, as does history. After reading this first chapter I have realized that Women's History is a completely different field of study told differently than other history subjects, both because we now live in a age where women have equality, and that scholars are coming to understand the history of women. ---David Fitch<br />
<br />
In Rethinking the Position of Black Women in American History, under the “gender first” policy, Alexander makes an valid point. I thought it was interesting when she said that you cannot divorce Black Women from the community or you will not understand the Black Woman. Black women had to hurdle racial inequality before they could focus on their own empowerment as a woman. They did not have that same leisure as a white woman. At the same time, you can’t explain women’s history without including black women. Black women were an intricate part of white women’s lives as servants or field laborers. Black Woman slaves relieved a lot of White Women’s duties so they could focus on raising their children. --MHimes<br />
<br />
I was interested in the statements made about black women and their roles in Women's History. Most of the time, people tend to combine all women into one category and forget that it is still important to focus on individual groups separately also. Historians may want to homogenize all women together when studying or writing about women but the reality is that they do have a separate history to that of white women. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
I was particularly interested in Kate Haulman's idea that identifying factors such as gender and race are created and fluid rather than having a sort of naturally fixed meaning. This notion gives richer meaning to the larger social and cultural narrative of any nation or people. -Erin B.<br />
<br />
The two most interesting articles to me were Kate Haulman's article and Leslie Alexander's. I agree with Erin about Haulman's approach. I found Haulman's article reminiscent of an article written by George Kennan. The article written by Kennan describes the difficulty in describing history because there is no specific beginning or end. I thought that theme was pertinent throughout Haulman's reading. The last reading written by Alexander made some good arguments and had an interesting approach. At first I was surprised by her resistance to grouping both black and white women together as a "homogeneous womanhood," but after pondering for a few minutes it makes sense. --MDvorak<br />
<br />
I think equality based on the sameness between men and women versus equality with a recognition of the differences between men and women is an interesting concept, one that was likely very important and dividing as women were defining their expectations of equality. We’ve come to expect that women be treated the same as men, but to what extend is appropriate? Under the equality of sameness sometimes women who are on maternity leave are listed as being on disabled leave. It’s a little insulting to infer that pregnancy is a disability (though I’m sure a few people would argue that it is). -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The focus on women's history as opposed to studying men and women in history combined is an important distinction. Gisela Bock's essay and dichotomies describe how distinct men really are from women. 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. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
All women aren’t united under the cause of women’s rights because they have had different experiences that have resulted from race, class, socio-economic status, and more, which according to Leslie Alexander also extends into the study and interpretation of women’s history by historians. She focuses on the particular issues of race and argues that the feminist movement is only useful as a lens for studying the experiences of white women, not the experiences of black women. While her view certainly has merit, by dismissing feminism’s use to black women in the manner she does it almost seems like she’s suggesting that the feminist movement is useful for considering all white women in general, while I would argue that it is most useful in regards to only a certain group of white women, particularly of the middle-class. Similarly, there is no simple lens to study the experiences of black women, as they are also influenced by a variety of factors beyond that of race alone. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I agree completely with Taylor's above comments. It is easy to see where Alexander comes from in contrasting Black women's history against those of what is generally thought of as Women's history. However, black women do fall under the umbrella of women's history, just as african-americans and women fall under the umbrella of history. There can always be subdivisions/classifications within different fields of study. There's always going to be at least one (but probably more) group or culture that is overlooked and one that is the focus. While women's history is focused on generally the upper-middle class of white women, thats primarily because those were the people leaving primary sources behind. We can't go back and teach slaves and later generations to write in diaries or send letters, so it is increasingly difficult to find sources from the time documenting their experiences. - Christine Leckner<br />
<br />
<br />
I found Gisela Bock's essay on dichotomies the most intriguing of all. By using these comparisons, I found that she fantastically described many of the social and political struggles that women face while describing different categories that scholars study women under. My favorite was the dichotomy of Integration vs. Autonomy because I had no idea that there was such argument going on about where Women's History should be included in a course of study as well as what it should include in itself. This argument of whether Women's History should be autonomous or integrated with such things as Gender History seemed like a parallel to feminist controversies in modern day social and work settings. I have often heard the argument that if women want to be integrated with men, then they should be treated the same, no special exceptions. But, if they want to keep things like maternity leave and not getting drafted, then they should remain autonomous with perhaps less benefits than men receive. I think that Bock definitely provided some interesting parallels between womens history controversies and modern social controversies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
Leslie Alexander puts forth an interesting idea when she says that "the recognition that Black and White women are culturally different opens a Pandora's box..." (p. 20) because it is something that many young feminists never consider, but when they do, they realize that is so very true. If historians and feminists were to recognize this, then their theory of one, strong womanhood would be attacked. Like Alexander said, Black women often name their race as their main identifying factor while most white women, especially feminists, put woman. If women's history scholars were to recognize this, then they would have to take another look at women's history and perhaps separate not just separate women from men, but also from each other based on their class, race, and even sexual orientation. This would put a whole new spin on feminism and women's studies. -- Angie W.<br />
<br />
One of the key components in the study of women's history is the recognition and understanding that different cultures expose women to different challenges. Alexander notes in her essay that to acknowledge the black and white women have different histories because of cultural differences seems to be obvious. We do not assume that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln have a bond simply because they were both of the same gender. It would be ludicrous to assume that all women have experienced the same histories and lives. - efritz<br />
<br />
efritz certainly makes some good points. There are definitely similarities between white and black women, the simplest being they are both women. However, I strongly disagree with having a universal image for women. Even white women are different from each other, based on things like their environment, family upbringing, or culture. So, of course white women and black women would vary from each other. When Alexander talked about it being obvious for these women to have different histories, I agreed. I had been surprised to find that historians had thought differently until it was strongly pointed out to them! -- CBrau<br />
<br />
I agree with Taylors interpretation of equality between the sexes. The women's movement of the 1970's was a tremendous boost to elevating the status of women in society. It assisted in raising wages of women to be closer to those of men, and allowed women to enter into occupations traditionally held by men. But how far do we want to go with equality? Men and women are different physically and physiologically for a reason. Women should be valued the same as men but I think that to deny that there are differences is also incorrect. -efritz<br />
<br />
I thoroughly enjoyed this reading. I particularly liked how class and race were emphasized in all four of the essays. The essay by Gisela Bock was interesting and raised a lot of good questions. As Angie pointed out, Bock does cover some of the basic struggles women face today and how scholars interpret these struggles, a point I found intriguing. A question I have, based off the reading is how each of the dichotomies she listed are specifically present today (as far as where), how much of an impact do they have on women in society and how much of an impact they currently have on the writing of women's history? I agree with the statement posted by efritz on equality. Although I do believe men and women should have equal opportunity, I think there should be a clear distinction between both men and women. -abratchi<br />
<br />
Leslie M. Alexander raised a lot of great points as well. I agree with Mmackey's statement that grouping all women together as a whole without the emphasis on the black woman (race, more broadly. In my opinion, ignoring Alexander's intricate tie to the community would hurt the writing of women's history, especially in terms of race and class. A challenge, I believe, that comes into play when writing Black women's history is the lack of sources available to accurately depict a Black women's lives (more specifically and broadly, women classified as other than 'white') throughout the late nineteenth and twentieth century. A question I have is what sources are currently available and in what quantity? How hard is it to accurately write a history of black women versus white women when a limited number of sources are available and, are scholars able to work through this lack of material? -abratchi<br />
<br />
In regards to Kate Haulman's reading I found her comments regarding woman's work versus mans work on page 5, "knitting as woman's work versus carpentry as man's" interesting. She attempts to redefine gender roles and challenge how we view women and men in society. I agree with efritz's comment the roles should not be stereotyped by gender males and females can perform the same duty and have a common goal of providing for themselves/family. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I also agree with Erin S.'s comments earlier on Bock's definitions of women, she looks at them in two separate spheres but the last sentence in her reading stood out the most to me. She is defining women as being in the home by baking the cake and making sure everyone else is satisfied before she even helps herself. Bock does recognize different approaches need to be taken in studying women but do other historians believe women have always acted this way? Or is this the role women were suppose to play as the provider for the family, never putting her needs before anyone elses? - Megan W.<br />
<br />
After reading Leslie Alexander's article on Black women, I believe Black women have definitely earned their own category in the study of history. Their lives cannot be placed into the general women's history category... and I completely agree with Alexander on that point. Black women experienced much more turmoil than the regular resistance white women faced. I do think it is interesting how Black women's history cannot just focus on the women, but instead, the entirety of their lives, including family, home life, and community. I had no idea that women's studies used to promote "homogeneity" within the field. I do not think that is possible, because while each woman struggled, every single diverse group within the category of women's history had a different struggle than another group, so I feel it is almost impossible to create a homogeneous concept within women's studies. --- Alex Mankarios<br />
<br />
I found Bock's discussion on the new dichotomies of women's studies to be the most interesting, particularly sex versus gender. I often hear people around me speak as if there are certain things women do and certain things men do, simply because they are biologically programmed that way by their sex, which is an example of what she refers to as the "social gender." Not that we should ignore biology completely, but I think our society allows it to become too much of the focus when talking about the differences between men and women. --- Alice W<br />
<br />
I liked the section on page four that discussion the "Female World of Love and Ritual" I found it interesting that women were able to establish such a difinitive bond with one another during the Victorian age which seemed markedly known for its rigid social rules. Perhaps it was out of this society that women found it necessary to establish bonds when they are so often excluded from the outside world. It is also an interesting and different way to view womens history in regards to their interactions with one another as opposed to their interactions with men. I feel like this is a perspective which might often be overlooked.--Emma<br />
<br />
I find the discussion thus far fascinating in that there seems to be a consensus that there is such a thing as a separate/distinct/different history of women in opposition to the heavily male-centric histories that have become so entrenched as to be not so much history but heritage. There seemed to be an undercurrent of "rescuing from undeserved obscurity" throughout the readings as well as many of the entries here, and while that is an admirable goal, but it seems to me that many historians, not only those who focus on feminist history but other minority segments of the population as well, assign agency with a very liberal hand. The focus on the "ordinary woman/man," I think, is helpful in tracing larger societal and cultural trends that in turn influence the larger politically-driven histories that seem so male-centric, but I feel as though the liberal assignment of agency by many revisionist historians have actually delegitimized the achievements of figures that really have had an impact on history and wonder about the implications of that; for example, the growth of (in many times pseudo-history) African-American centered histories during the mid-late 1970s (not quite sure about the dates) that assigned agency to African Americans in outlandish ways such as asserting that the race was responsible for more or less every major event in American history. I might be making a stretch here, but I think that the creation of identity-based histories and the influence of such politics on histories are detrimental to minority segments of the population. Random thoughts--should there be such things as categories in history? Is there such a thing or are there just historians who specialize in certain aspects of history? -schang</div>Schang 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