McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php</b> on line <b>908</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Sgard9lv</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Sgard9lv"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Sgard9lv"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T22:25:33Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T05:16:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Stacey Article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family.  Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved.  As one gender had more &amp;quot;power&amp;quot; in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control.  One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times.  A family&amp;#039;s economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance.  It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the &amp;quot;ideal family&amp;quot; changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s kind of amazing to see how quickly the &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; can change in such a short amount of time.  As we&amp;#039;ve noted, there are a variety of family types that make it almost impossible to nail down one distinct definition of what the family is.  Even in the 20 years it&amp;#039;s been since Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg published their little gem, the family has continued to grow and adapt.  Who knew families were really so complicated? -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.  I liked how M&amp;amp;K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980&amp;#039;s. Conservatives used the word to mean &amp;quot;traditional social values&amp;quot; to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean &amp;quot;compassion&amp;quot; in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need.  This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc.  This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class.  I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression).  -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One section I found particularly interesting was the reaction couples had after WWII. I couldn’t help but think of my grandfather who was a soldier in D-Day and was later injured. Upon returning home he had a similar reaction to the Army Captain on p. 171. His wife and he realized very quickly that too many things had changed and ended up like so many couples getting a divorce. I think it is an interesting stress on families that is not necessarily given the attention it deserves. Not only the stress of war, but of other traumatic events, that ultimately change a marriage and push a couple towards divorce. -Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s incredible to me how people today still compare families to the families of the 1950s.  With everything from &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Pleasantville&amp;quot; Americans today continue to romanticize the 1950s and the &amp;quot;perfect family.&amp;quot;  It&amp;#039;s no wonder, though, with the age of marriage at a dramatic low and a birthrate that skyrocketed that there were ideal family households in the middle class.  It was a return to &amp;quot;normalcy;&amp;quot; a sense of stability that had been disrupted by WWII. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also like how much the media played into this &amp;quot;perfect family&amp;quot; as Kelly puts it, not only now, but also during the fifties.  All the advertisements showing these perfect wives with their perfect lives -- cooking dinner, ironing her husband&amp;#039;s shirts and reading a book all at the same time!  That stereotype was a ridiculously high standard to live up to.  It really is no wonder that so many people rebelled against this &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; in decades to come. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the role television people played in influencing past images of American families was really interesting. I know watching shows on Nick at Nick such as &amp;quot;I Love Lucy,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Hazel,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Donna Reed Show,&amp;quot; has forever impacted my view and impressions of this time period. Its hard for me to imagine a woman of the period, such as Mrs. Cleaver, not smiling while serving their busbands supper. While these shows clearly impact our view of the 50s and 60s today, I never considered the impact these shows had at the time they aired. I also think its interesting how the shows such as &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; are shows that parents could aspire to whereas I don&amp;#039;t know if parents always feel the same about today&amp;#039;s television shows. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she&amp;#039;s going a little too far in defining it.  I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants.  To their thinking the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article really interesting, I couldn&amp;#039;t think of another article while I&amp;#039;ve read at UMW that was so &amp;quot;liberal.&amp;quot; Maybe I&amp;#039;m in this political mindset lately having to listen to Rush for two hours Monday at my internship...-Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I did a little research on the author, and she&amp;#039;s a professor at NYU and strong advocate for gay rights (no surprise there!) but I saw a short interview where she defended gay partnerships with children as being just as supportive and loving as heterosexual couples because, she said, a homosexual couple actually has to make the choice to become parents-sometimes heterosexual couples have children by accident so they may not be as ready as if they chose to be parents. Also, she defended gay parents by giving evidence that most homosexual parents are usually older and have been together longer than heterosexual parents.--just food for thought, honestly I haven&amp;#039;t really made up my mind on gay parenting but I would say her article is very persuasive.-Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that this was an interesting article although I have to agree with Joyce that this piece is rather liberal leaning. I thought it was also interesting how lesbians parent more then gay men do and that children said they enjoyed having two moms and believed their friends would be jealous of them. While I imagine that having two moms must be great, I wonder if they will ever get the masculine influences of a father-figure in their lives. That said, many children of single-mom grow up just fine without a live-in father figure. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment.  I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights.  -Lacey&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T03:30:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family.  Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved.  As one gender had more &amp;quot;power&amp;quot; in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control.  One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times.  A family&amp;#039;s economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance.  It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the &amp;quot;ideal family&amp;quot; changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s kind of amazing to see how quickly the &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; can change in such a short amount of time.  As we&amp;#039;ve noted, there are a variety of family types that make it almost impossible to nail down one distinct definition of what the family is.  Even in the 20 years it&amp;#039;s been since Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg published their little gem, the family has continued to grow and adapt.  Who knew families were really so complicated? -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.  I liked how M&amp;amp;K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980&amp;#039;s. Conservatives used the word to mean &amp;quot;traditional social values&amp;quot; to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean &amp;quot;compassion&amp;quot; in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 7: American Families Face the Great Depression ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need.  This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc.  This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class.  I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression).  -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 8: Families on the Home Front ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One section I found particularly interesting was the reaction couples had after WWII. I couldn’t help but think of my grandfather who was a soldier in D-Day and was later injured. Upon returning home he had a similar reaction to the Army Captain on p. 171. His wife and he realized very quickly that too many things had changed and ended up like so many couples getting a divorce. I think it is an interesting stress on families that is not necessarily given the attention it deserves. Not only the stress of war, but of other traumatic events, that ultimately change a marriage and push a couple towards divorce. -Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg Chapter 9: The Golden Age - Families of the 1950s ==&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s incredible to me how people today still compare families to the families of the 1950s.  With everything from &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; to &amp;quot;Pleasantville&amp;quot; Americans today continue to romanticize the 1950s and the &amp;quot;perfect family.&amp;quot;  It&amp;#039;s no wonder, though, with the age of marriage at a dramatic low and a birthrate that skyrocketed that there were ideal family households in the middle class.  It was a return to &amp;quot;normalcy;&amp;quot; a sense of stability that had been disrupted by WWII. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also like how much the media played into this &amp;quot;perfect family&amp;quot; as Kelly puts it, not only now, but also during the fifties.  All the advertisements showing these perfect wives with their perfect lives -- cooking dinner, ironing her husband&amp;#039;s shirts and reading a book all at the same time!  That stereotype was a ridiculously high standard to live up to.  It really is no wonder that so many people rebelled against this &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; in decades to come. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the role television people played in influencing past images of American families was really interesting. I know watching shows on Nick at Nick such as &amp;quot;I Love Lucy,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Hazel,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Donna Reed Show,&amp;quot; has forever impacted my view and impressions of this time period. Its hard for me to imagine a woman of the period, such as Mrs. Cleaver, not smiling while serving their busbands supper. While these shows clearly impact our view of the 50s and 60s today, I never considered the impact these shows had at the time they aired. I also think its interesting how the shows such as &amp;quot;Leave it to Beaver&amp;quot; are shows that parents could aspire to whereas I don&amp;#039;t know if parents always feel the same about today&amp;#039;s television shows. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with you Rebecca, I think that she&amp;#039;s going a little too far in defining it.  I think that she is talking about some of the more disturbing (not necessarily the best way to put it) things that people dream up about sexual deviants.  To their thinking the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gays and lesbians would, I guess, be more acceptable. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the introduction about classifying “gay families” by one person’s or one couple’s sexual orientation interesting. She brings up an interesting point. Simply because one member of the family is of another ethnicity or religion, the family itself does not change to meet the definition of its one member. It brings up another aspect of American families in attempting to define them and understand ways to categorize different families. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this article really interesting, I couldn&amp;#039;t think of another article while I&amp;#039;ve read at UMW that was so &amp;quot;liberal.&amp;quot; Maybe I&amp;#039;m in this political mindset lately having to listen to Rush for two hours Monday at my internship...-Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I did a little research on the author, and she&amp;#039;s a professor at NYU and strong advocate for gay rights (no surprise there!) but I saw a short interview where she defended gay partnerships with children as being just as supportive and loving as heterosexual couples because, she said, a homosexual couple actually has to make the choice to become parents-sometimes heterosexual couples have children by accident so they may not be as ready as if they chose to be parents. Also, she defended gay parents by giving evidence that most homosexual parents are usually older and have been together longer than heterosexual parents.--just food for thought, honestly I haven&amp;#039;t really made up my mind on gay parenting but I would say her article is very persuasive.-Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, that is really interesting and to some extent not hard to come by, meaning that you can get financial interdependence from the power of attorneys for each other, though it does require some level of commitment.  I think its really interesting and slightly ironic that gay rights activisim is the cause for legislation that in fact helps some people who are most adamantly against gay rights.  -Lacey&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-23T01:36:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Change over Time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Change over Time ==&lt;br /&gt;
How has the American family changed over time in the 20th century?  What distinguishes each decade?  How does this work with our notions of &amp;quot;what the ideal family is?&amp;quot;  How does each decade compare to the 19th century families we have studied all semester?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, this question demands a long answer but I&amp;#039;m going to briefly write that gender roles have constantly changed throughout the century, and the economy has affected these family roles. From the &amp;quot;Companionate Family,&amp;quot; where husband and wives became friends and lovers and children became friends, to the influx of women entering the workforce and some men becoming &amp;quot;mr. mom,&amp;quot; the roles have constantly changed in this one century. The economy always played a role in the family too, whether it was the Depression causing a decline in divorces, marriages and birthrates, or the Fifties creating the &amp;quot;ideal&amp;quot; family, the increase of birthrates, and the suburb family, the changes have been numerous and constant. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Changing gender roles, have the most impact on the different definitions of family.  Each decade has had a slightly new gender ideal that shaped the way the family unit evolved.  As one gender had more &amp;quot;power&amp;quot; in the relationship the other adapted slightly to allow for the influx in control.  One thing that we did notice was the overwhelming majority of male dominated society; however, I was very impressed with the amount of power and control that women had a various times.  A family&amp;#039;s economic status is also key, because if it is financially necessary both husband and wife share dominance.  It also seemed that in many cases dominance has some relation to work, and it seems work outside the home. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I agree that changing gender roles was a main aspect of change in families over the decades of the 20th century, I think that different ideas concerning children and family size also impacted the nature of the American family. As family size decreased ideas of the &amp;quot;ideal family&amp;quot; changed. Today, everything seems to built around the notion that a family consists of 4 people, 2 parents and 2 children. I think this is a very different notion then people had at the turn of the last century. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Today? ==&lt;br /&gt;
How is today&amp;#039;s American family difference/similar to the ones from Mintz and Kellogg and the article which are 20 and 10 years old respectivly?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg, Chapter 6: The Rise of the Companionate Family, 1900-1930 ==&lt;br /&gt;
On page 109, Mintz and Kellogg mentioned that the companionate family is a model and ideal &amp;quot;of family function and behavior, which remains with us today.&amp;quot;  However, I think that the model of family is changing today because, Kellogg and Mintz metioned people stayed together because of friendship and love but right now, divorce rates are going down with the sited reason that people cannot afford to not be together.  So, currently the model is evolving because of the economy with people staying together for financial concerns. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of parallels to other readings in the 107-201 M&amp;amp;K reading.  I was reminded of Riley when reading about divorce and May with childlessness, &amp;quot;shirking duties&amp;quot; and the decline in the birth rate.  It was a little frightening how much M&amp;amp;K gloss over the material in order to cover it all, but still very interesting.  I am curious about the 1890 &amp;quot;watershed&amp;quot; that was described on page 112.  M&amp;amp;K didn&amp;#039;t do a good job explaining why that year was so pivotal, or why it might have been.  I found the changes in childbirth and child rearing very interesting: to know why most births began to take place in hospitals.  Some of the parenting ideas were completely nuts, like not encouraging their kids to laugh or show affection to babies.  It&amp;#039;s a wonder people from that era turned out at all!  When reading about the Great Depression I was thinking a lot about parallels to today.  It definitely made me think that things are not nearly as bad as they could be, but that just like M&amp;amp;K say, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly are the hardest hit by rough economic times.  In the later periods discussed, I couldn&amp;#039;t believe the short marriages that took place during WWII.  It was interesting to read also how that time period affected divorce laws, and how frequent unfaithfulness was for GIs.  Finally it was nice to see the transition toward the equality movement: with men taking an interest in their homes and families, that began in the 1950s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The last chapter and epilogue show the radical shift that took place between the early chapters of the book and the end.  During the first part of Chapter X I kept thinking of my Pop Culture class, and how we studied Ozzie&amp;amp;Harriet, The Cosbys, and Gilmore Girls as 3 case studies of the American family.  It seems to me that the 1960s-80s saw the most marked jump.  As M&amp;amp;K discussed, family life may have included more equality between husbands and wives, but this was also the era of Playboy and topless bars.  Also, family law because its own industry of cases and lawyers, which set the stage for the Family Court/Divorce Court tv shows of today.  It&amp;#039;s really amazing to see how much the family transitioned over 200 years.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was really amazed with the change from the beginning to the end of Mintz &amp;amp; Kellogg.  While the beginning seemed to focuses on the stereotypical family, like we remember from older TV shows.  Yet toward the end they shifted to a more equal partner ship among husband and wife.  I liked how M&amp;amp;K looked at the impact the changing family had on children in the 60s and 70s. As well as how divorce rates have led to new ways of raising children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it really interesting how much families come together during times of need.  This was shown during the Great Depression when people relied on each other for food, money, work etc.  This is not a new thing created during the depression, but it is a common theme for most of the families we discussed in class.  I just think it is really encouraging that even when things are rough, people (for the most part) can turn to their families for support (also a parallel to today, though not to the extreme of the depression).  -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting to read on page 240 how the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; has been used by both conservative and liberal politicians in the 1980&amp;#039;s. Conservatives used the word to mean &amp;quot;traditional social values&amp;quot; to express opposition to big government involvement, while the liberals used the word to mean &amp;quot;compassion&amp;quot; in order to increase government involvement with the poor and so on. The fact that the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; was used by both teams over the role of government in American life reestablishes the debate on what is &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; and how does society define it? Is it a small, inclusive unit, or something that the whole community is involved with. We have seen throughout this semester that opinions on this have changed over the nineteenth, and now the twentieth centuries. It is also interesting that conservatives used the word &amp;quot;family&amp;quot; to mean traditional social values. But these values have changed so much over time it is hard to put our finger on what these traditional values are. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Stacey Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
The author&amp;#039;s opinions certainly do show in this article.  It was interesting to read about the origins of these movements in the 90s, because I think most of us were kids and oblivious to what was going on.  Stacey portrayed Pat Moynihan in a very different light than M&amp;amp;K.  Stacey clearly feels that gay and lesbian couple have second class options for marriage and child rearing, and that the fights over babies and other legal battles have caused people to preach, fight and protest what she sees as a new reality in the American family.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had some problems with Stacey&amp;#039;s article, mainly because (and it could be from skimming) it seemed like one moment she was all for gay and lesbians coming out and being able to be married and raise a family, and the next I felt like she was against it.  However, I liked how in the end she decided that, &amp;quot;[i]n th name of our families, and of democracy, we must move forward, not backward, to address the great social threats that imperil us all.&amp;quot; (pg 398-9)  Now, whether she means death to gay/bi marriage and families, or that as Americans, we need to move forward with policies and address policies with a changing nation instead of trying to revert to what family and life was decades and centuries ago, I don&amp;#039;t know.  However, I prefer to think she meant the later. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On page 384, Stacey is talking about how legal gay marriage would impact the homosexual community, and one point jumped out at me as really strange. Stacey says that:  &amp;quot;conservatives agree that legalizing gay marriage would further marginalize sexual radicals by segregating counter-cultural gays and lesbians from the &amp;#039;whitebread&amp;#039; gay couples who could then choose to marry their way into Middle America.&amp;quot; This sentence really surprised me. &amp;quot;Whitebread&amp;quot; gay couples??? Does our society really make a distinction between &amp;quot;whitebread&amp;quot; gays and &amp;quot;counter-cultural&amp;quot; gays? I think being gay in our society is pretty counter-cultural in and of itself. I am pretty skeptical of this idea that gay couples would be accepted in Middle America just because they were married. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Domestic Partnerships ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey guys, I thought you might find this interesting. According to my company&amp;#039;s insurance provider, these are the criteria you have to meet in order to have your relationship be considered a domestic partenship. I think it is interesting to see the rules spelled out like this, because it gets at how we define family. (or how we define marriage outside of the institution of marriage)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, using these rules, I was able to get my boyfriend on my health insurance policy as my domestic partner, which was a huge benefit for us. This is an example of something that came up a lot in Stacey&amp;#039;s article, that these types of policies, that exist because of the efforts of gay rights advocates, have a big impact on non-gay relationships as well.  -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners may be of the same sex or of opposite sexes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Domestic partners must:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be parties to a government-recognized civil union or government-recognized&lt;br /&gt;
same sex marriage, or be included in a government domestic partner registry&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
OR&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be least 18 years of age,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have the legal capacity to contract,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Share a close, committed, and exclusive personal relationship that is meant to be&lt;br /&gt;
of lasting duration,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Have shared a common legal residence continuously for at least 3 months,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Be financially interdependent,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not be parties to a legally recognized marriage either to each other or anyone else,&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not share blood or familial relationship that would be bar marriage under the laws&lt;br /&gt;
of the state in which the couple resides, nor be a member of another domestic&lt;br /&gt;
partnership or substantially similar relationship, and&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Not have been a member of another domestic partnership or substantially similar&lt;br /&gt;
relationship within the past 6 months.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Financial interdependence may be established with any of the following documents:&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint mortgage or lease on place of residence&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Joint title on motor vehicle&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement establishing joint bank account or credit card account&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Agreement with a third party lender for joint repayment of indebtedness&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Designation of one partner as the other’s beneficiary for life insurance or&lt;br /&gt;
retirement benefits&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• A joint will, or reciprocal wills in which each partner designates the other as&lt;br /&gt;
executor or primary beneficiary&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Durable powers of attorney by each partner in favor of the other&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
• Health care directives or living wills in which each partner gives the other the&lt;br /&gt;
authority to make health care decisions&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-16T00:55:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Working Class Families */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive.  It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed.  Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren&amp;#039;t was very different.  While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that Coontz&amp;#039;s discussion on black family life was very interesting and addresses some of past class discussions on single parenting in black families. That black women found work easier then black men was also interesting and must have been a source of contention. It is sad that racial discrimination lead to the failure of black marriages and divorce. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-16T00:18:17Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Irish American Family */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Irish American Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how women waited until they were much older to marry than the other groups we have read about.  Were there any other groups who waited as long as the Irish or was it just them? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Diner mentioned other ethnic groups and made it seem like it was only the Irish who waited.  I found her discussion of marriage of Irish Americans interesting.  Young women were so eager to rush into jobs when they were single, but when they were no longer economic burdens on their families and married, they were eager to stop working and become mothers.  I think she painted a pretty bleak picture of their marriages: that at best, the relationships were characterized by irritability and separate spheres.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the Irish tradition of late or non marriage impressive.  It surprises me that of all traditions that were maintained when coming to America this one stayed.  Most women in American were expected to marry young, and the fact that the Irish weren&amp;#039;t was very different.  While it economically made sense, socially it had to cause problems - Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also thought that it was interesting and somewhat surprising that the Irish men and women married at such a late age or never at all. With the emphasis on having lots of children, I would have expected them to have married sooner. The fact that they were able to maintain this tradition, especially as it was soon new to them, was also surprising. I was impressed that they would with go marriage to provide economic support for their families back in Ireland and in America. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Working Class Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve always thought this was interesting, that even though the family needs the money and needs things to get done, they still have strict gender divisions.  As quoted on page 103 of Stephanie Coontz article, &amp;quot;World-class families did accept a clear division of labor on the basis of gender, however, and often formulated it in terms of domesticity.&amp;quot;  However, I also liked that she included (even if a lot later in the article) that when the housewife was sick, the husband or males or children had to take on the &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work&amp;#039; because there were no servants or anyone else to do it.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s interesting how Coontz made parallels between ethnicities and also classes.  Still it seems that ethnic divisions were very prominent even during the labor movement.  The working class family ties in with our recent discussions of childlessness and the importance of children in families.  The working class families knew that child wage earners were critical and they must have circumvented child labor laws.  I was also surprised to read about the conditions of the women: that immigrants were still hauling water in many cases.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that though immigrants mostly only made up the working class, they had their own &amp;quot;middle class&amp;quot; and in some rare cases they would occasionally work their way up to be comparable to what Coontz called the native-born middle class. Those immigrants that managed to do this did so thought manipulation.  I found it interesting that once these families became middle class they changed to mirror their neighbors. While it does not surprise me that they wanted to fit in, I just found it surprising that while they maintained cultural identity up until this point they quickly dropped it.- Kellye S&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-14T03:43:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* General Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== General Comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing.  It seems like all we&amp;#039;ve read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite.  The guys are seen as the religious ones.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family.  I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society.  I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things.  It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife.  It&amp;#039;s funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the role of women’s work interesting and how their work outside the home provided them with leverage and fluidity. In contrast I found the role of tailors to be particularly interesting, demonstrating the role reversal of gender responsibilities and occupations. It was not acceptable, in fact shameful for men to be tailors, yet it was liberating, economically wise, and brought great pride to families with daughters who were seamstresses or dressmakers. Why do you think so? In what other ethnic groups has this been practiced? – Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren&amp;#039;t worth as much.  That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...).  I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them.  Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this reading.  I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history.  It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work.  It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting to look at the Jewish immigrant group in the United States because no matter where they settled they were seen as outsiders.  I liked having a chance to look at how they were affected by immigration to America. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As the author briefly notes, so is the case in much of Jewish history.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed this reading and found the background information very helpful for understanding some of the Jewish reactions to America. For instance, the background on Jewish attitudes towards housekeeping made it easier to understand how insulted they felt by being asked to do household tasks, such as cleaning, in their new American tenements and boarding houses. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the idea of working for one&amp;#039;s self as opposed to working for someone else was an interesting notion.  It was interesting to see how business was the dominant and most admired profession because it required mental strength and intellect and if a woman could get a job like that she would be held in higher regard.  Typically it&amp;#039;s domestic work and work around the household that is seen as woman&amp;#039;s work and the more respectable position for women.  To reward them for their intellect is something new.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was intrigued by Glenn&amp;#039;s comment that &amp;quot;the disparate subfields of social history have not been well integrated.&amp;quot; In this case she is looking at immigration history, women&amp;#039;s history, and the history of Jewish immigrants in the American garment industry. I agree with Glenn&amp;#039;s comment, and I think this is a problem that has come up a lot in this class. Often when we have critiqued a book, the problem seems to be a lack of integration of these subfields in social history. For example, some of us complained that the book on courtship and divorce in the American West was not properly integrated with Native American studies. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the different experiences and expectations of Jewish mothers and daughters in the New World were particularly interesting. The fact that working outside the home was considered taboo for wives and mothers but was acceptable and in many cases, even expected, of daughters shows differences in generational standards as well as the impact married life had on a woman&amp;#039;s access to the workplace. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women in the Old World ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think Glenn&amp;#039;s reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women&amp;#039;s lives in the Old World versus their new role in America.  Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy.  Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations.  Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week.  I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Joe I found the comparison between Jewish women&amp;#039;s lives in the Old World in relation to their new role in America to be intresting.  I think this ties in really well with Joe&amp;#039;s point from above about education/academic expectations.  On another note, Does the way women worked in the &amp;quot;old-world&amp;quot; provide one of the reasons for anti-semetic feelings in America? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Jewish Women in America ==&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve actually been to Ellis Island and when you visit that place, nowhere do they refer to it as the &amp;quot;Isle of Tears.&amp;quot;  Bad for publicity, I suppose.  What these families had to go through to get into America sounds just horrible and so bothersome.  The fact that one wrong answer could prevent you from your final destination for days is just absurd.  America was seen as the land of opportunity for a lot of the immigrant groups that came through and being immediately greeted with such a harsh environment must have made these families worry from the start.  It is a bit comforting to know, however, that the guards at Ellis Island did their best to look out for the young women traveling alone.  That had to be terrifying on a number of levels.  -Kelly W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-14T01:46:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* General Comments */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== General Comments ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found this factoid interesting when I learned about it in my History of Spain class a few semesters back, but the fact that the Jewish community had many women work outside the home so that the men could pray is amazing.  It seems like all we&amp;#039;ve read this semester is the community saw the woman as the pious religious guide, and then here among the Jews its the opposite.  The guys are seen as the religious ones.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley, although it appeared to me that the religious or intellectual occupation of the Jewish man had little bearing to economically advancing the Jewish family.  I found it interesting the examples that Glenn uses in her reading that some Jewish fathers who were intellectuals or pious scholars often did not allow their daughters enough opportunity to advance in society.  I think it was through these examples where Glenn begins to define how Jewish Zionists and Bundists reacted to socialism and how it effected the Jewish women. --Joe C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it interesting that women were respected for working and being the breadwinners as long as their husbands were doing religious things.  It especially liked when it said that although the work women were doing now was hard and not fun the women would benefit in the afterlife.  It&amp;#039;s funny how women would benefit in the afterlife for their hard labor and taking care of their husbands and men would benefit in the afterlife from studying -- seems a little unfair to me. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I still find it depressing to read in articles, books, documents, etc... that females weren&amp;#039;t worth as much.  That they were seen as lesser beings, burdens, or not much more than a slave to her male family counterparts (father, brothers, husband, etc...).  I always feel so sad and sympathetic for them.  Although, I also wonder if they felt repressed by the men because that was the life they knew.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed this reading.  I had never thought about how ethnic/religious groups fit in to the working class history.  It was interested to learn about how their religion affected their work.  It is also nice to get another religious perspective, specifically the Jewish perspective, about the working class America and gender roles. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting to look at the Jewish immigrant group in the United States because no matter where they settled they were seen as outsiders.  I liked having a chance to look at how they were affected by immigration to America. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed this reading and found the background information very helpful for understanding some of the Jewish reactions to America. For instance, the background on Jewish attitudes towards housekeeping made it easier to understand how insulted they felt by being asked to do household tasks, such as cleaning, in their new American tenements and boarding houses. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women in the Old World ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think Glenn&amp;#039;s reading makes a clear distinction between Jewish women&amp;#039;s lives in the Old World versus their new role in America.  Although women received unequal rights and responsibilities, I found it interesting that they were given the opportunity to work in the business sector of the eastern European economy.  Whereas in many regions throughout the United States women usually worked domestically, Jewish women in eastern Europe perceived domestic service as the lowest on the hierarchy of female occupations.  Yet the business sector for Jewish women was greatly disadvantaged because their Sabbath on saturday rather than sunday forced them to only do business five days of the week.  I was also intrigued about their ability to work in artisan shops and their significance to the sewing industry. Yet because of the economic constructs of eastern Europe, they were always subject to shortages of products and machines. --Joe C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T03:56:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Eugenics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Preface&amp;amp; Intro. ==&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s crazy to think about society determining who is suited for having children and who is not.  It does not seem like society&amp;#039;s place but then reading about how much of a say communities tried to have, or in some cases did have, made it seem like it was rather normal in some societies in the nineteenth century.  Procreation is a very private decision among the family itself and it&amp;#039;s kind of shocking how public this sacred decision is becoming.  With all of the technology and medical advancements we have today the decision to have children is a much more public decision.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really struck me in the preface is how emotionally charged this issue  was for all the people who answered the author&amp;#039;s query. On all sides of the issues people used such strong language, like the one woman complaining about all the &amp;quot;breeder propaganda&amp;quot; in the media. I was most surprised by people like her who were vehemently against having children in general. There is a difference between &amp;quot;that&amp;#039;s not right for me&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;why is this breeder propaganda everywhere!?&amp;quot; This attitude surprised me because it is not one that I hear very often. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Barren to Infertile ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn&amp;#039;t get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman&amp;#039;s fault if there were problems with childbirth.  One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft.  Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and &amp;quot;misdirected powers of fertility.&amp;quot; (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What did you guys think about the picture at the beginning of chapter one? I tried to count the babies, I can&amp;#039;t decide if there are ten or eleven. I wonder if colonists really thought about reproduction as so central to the new world they were creating. This picture makes it seem like they did. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eugenics ==&lt;br /&gt;
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s.  The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting.  I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I knew eugenics had a start in the 1900s, but I did not realize how quickly it became a dominant mindset among some of the medical community.  It was horrible of the eugenicists to try to determine who was allowed to have children and to mock the women who were unable to have their own children.  Regardless of how badly some of these women wanted kids, they were still shunned and scorned for being infertile.  It just seems like a horrible situation to be in; to be yelled at for being infertile.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I agree that many of the statistics on birth control use and the prevalence of abortion surprised me as well, I was also surprised by the adoption process. Not unlike today, it seems that there were more couples trying to adopt children then there were children up for adoption. Many individuals appear to have been desperate to adopt to escape the stigma of childlessness. I was also amazed to learn that forms of artificial reproduction were used in the late 1800s. In addition, the whole concept of &amp;quot;worthy&amp;quot; parents seemed a bit alien to me, almost as if one should have to earn the right to have parents rather then a natural biological ability. --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sterilization ==&lt;br /&gt;
This always amazes me.  Every time I read it I&amp;#039;m still amazed and mad.  Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission!  It disgusts me!  And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me.  I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor.  It seems that people didn&amp;#039;t want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn&amp;#039;t even take care of themselves let alone a child.  Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler&amp;#039;s mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reaction to the Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Readings such as these usually make me mad.  Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing.  If a woman doesn&amp;#039;t want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship!  Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society&amp;#039;s attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T03:41:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Sterilization */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Preface&amp;amp; Intro. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Barren to Infertile ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn&amp;#039;t get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman&amp;#039;s fault if there were problems with childbirth.  One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft.  Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and &amp;quot;misdirected powers of fertility.&amp;quot; (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eugenics ==&lt;br /&gt;
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s.  The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting.  I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sterilization ==&lt;br /&gt;
This always amazes me.  Every time I read it I&amp;#039;m still amazed and mad.  Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission!  It disgusts me!  And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me.  I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor.  It seems that people didn&amp;#039;t want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn&amp;#039;t even take care of themselves let alone a child.  Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kelly about the section on sterilization. I was appalled to learn how many men and women, particularly minority groups such as Native Americans and African Americans, were sterilized against their will and frequently without their consent or prior knowledge. Not only does this illustrate discrimination but it really shows how much people, particularly doctors, really believed that by making these individuals infertile, society would be improved. Its unfortunate that they did not put more time and attention towards improving their environments instead of removing their fertility. It also surprised me that eugenics and sterilization remained so prevalent event after Hitler&amp;#039;s mass sterilizations in Germany. I would think that that would have halted such acts in the United States. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reaction to the Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Readings such as these usually make me mad.  Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing.  If a woman doesn&amp;#039;t want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship!  Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society&amp;#039;s attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-09T03:37:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Reaction to the Reading */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Preface&amp;amp; Intro. ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Barren to Infertile ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While it is not the first time that I have heard it, it still surprises me how women who gave birth to stillborn or who couldn&amp;#039;t get pregnant were blamed. It was always the woman&amp;#039;s fault if there were problems with childbirth.  One thing that did surprise me was the link between infertility and witchcraft.  Women that could not get pregnant were often assumed to be practicing witchcraft and &amp;quot;misdirected powers of fertility.&amp;quot; (28) Other causes were often attributed to indiscretions. --Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Eugenics ==&lt;br /&gt;
I did not know about the prevalence of abortion in the early 1900s.  The reasons and ways eugenicists tried to convince to people, or not to (depending on their race/class) was interesting.  I was surprised to read that movies and Hollywood helped to create the childless movement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Sterilization ==&lt;br /&gt;
This always amazes me.  Every time I read it I&amp;#039;m still amazed and mad.  Doctors sterilized people without their knowledge or permission!  It disgusts me!  And I know they thought they were doing the right thing, but its still retarded! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The idea of involuntary sterilization upsets me.  I guess I can sort of understand how people would not want the mentally disabled to have children, especially those that were poor.  It seems that people didn&amp;#039;t want to have to pay for the poor and if there were even more poor, especially children whose parents couldn&amp;#039;t even take care of themselves let alone a child.  Mentally disabled poor caused problems for society and I can see how a portion could want to prevent these people from having children. At the same time a doctor sterilizing someone without their permission is really wrong. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Reaction to the Reading ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Readings such as these usually make me mad.  Mostly because all I think of is that men were selfish pigs who understood nothing.  If a woman doesn&amp;#039;t want to have children with you that says something about the current relationship!  Make it better before you try to bring children into the scene. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did this reading change how you think about childless families in America? If so, how? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I thought that this was a very interesting reading. I have never really considered the history of childlessness but this article really highlighted the variety of emotions people feel about it and have felt over the course of American history. The historical shifts in society&amp;#039;s attitudes towards childlessness seem readily apparent, particularly from the colonial period to the progressive era. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-06T23:48:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Adams Article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Background (Please post!)==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American.  Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles.  What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)?  What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)?  Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon&amp;#039;s American West class I am taking this semester.  We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited.  I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don&amp;#039;t know much about it. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine&amp;#039;s Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon&amp;#039;s History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To be honest I haven&amp;#039;t had much background either.  There have been snippets of Native American history here and there in a lot of my courses and classes over the years, but there hasn&amp;#039;t been one basic group that I&amp;#039;ve really studied intently enough to remember who was who and where.  What I do remember is that Europeans and Natives fought a lot and whites forced their ways on the Natives because they felt the Natives&amp;#039; ways were savage and wrong.  It would definitely influence how I interpreted these articles because the boarding school one just pissed me off with the way whites treated the Natives.  Honestly, if you don&amp;#039;t have the food and clothing to provide the students then don&amp;#039;t open the school!  Or at least secure the funds to properly feed and clothe them. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I took two classes last semester (17th c. Colonial History and Colonial Biography) that looked briefly at Native Americans, particularly the Tribes in Virginia. I recognized alot of info in the first reading, such as the matrilinear and matrifocal households and the different gender roles (women farming and men hunting.) So while much of what we read for Tuesday seems like old info, I was struck by the fact that men and women weren&amp;#039;t necessarily men and women because of biological differences, but by the gender roles they had. So if a man worked in the fields he was considered a woman. I am always interested in Native Americans, I always have been. Reading about the gender roles in the different Native American groups goes to show how different their cultures were and how much of their culture was torn from them.- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Perdue Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article.  However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work.  I don&amp;#039;t really agree with this.  I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;had&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to, not because they were saints.  They didn&amp;#039;t object because they didn&amp;#039;t know any different.  Also, other than mentioning that  men felt that farming was women&amp;#039;s work, she didn&amp;#039;t go in depth on how emasculated men were.  Did any one notice that she used the explorers&amp;#039; accounts for evidence?  She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period.  I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious.  Who&amp;#039;s standard is she using?  Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century.  But it&amp;#039;s not what I expected from a modern historian.  She didn&amp;#039;t question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article.  However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women&amp;#039;s roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing.  The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power.  They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother&amp;#039;s side, determine the fate of war captives, etc.  It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don&amp;#039;t think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Sarah, I completely agree with you on the infanticide topic. Maybe I&amp;#039;m being ethnocentric or too ethical, but when I read Perdue&amp;#039;s statement that women lost their &amp;quot;right&amp;quot; to control the size of their families by infanticide, I thought that that was a good thing. Perdue seemed to feel that it was the opposite; another loss in Native women&amp;#039;s rights. I&amp;#039;m going to probably start a pretty controversial Wiki here, but I think Perdue is taking her extreme feminism a little too far. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adams Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families.  I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system.  But especially with the &amp;quot;forced procurement&amp;quot; of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly.  Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don&amp;#039;t mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I thought it was very well written and entertaining.  I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real.  I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to &amp;quot;civilize&amp;quot; these Native Americans.  It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the &amp;quot;right thing&amp;quot; it really doesn&amp;#039;t excuse them for it. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Question:&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before advancing on Rebecca&amp;#039;s questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was.  I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans.  I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other.  In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture.  Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist.  But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of &amp;quot;civilizing&amp;quot; Native Americans. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Rebecca&amp;#039;s question, I think the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers were self-centered and ridicuolous.  I do not think they wanted to genuinely help the Native Americans, their lives seemed alright without the Anglos interference.  All their &amp;#039;help&amp;#039; did was to break down a lot of tradition and history before it could mostly be recorded somehow.  I feel like the policies were really intended to get rid of the Native Americans, I mean come on, they wanted the Native Americans to assimilate into white culture, which meant a radical change in a lot of Natives&amp;#039;s way of life.  I think some of it was religion because for some reasons the Christians couldn&amp;#039;t comprehend the idea of freedom of religion in this country, everyone has to be Christian to them, regardless of the basic right.  They felt for Natives to be citizens they also had to be Christian, they couldn&amp;#039;t keep their previous religion.  I&amp;#039;m not really sure how much was racism... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The missionaries, teachers, and policy makers appear to have had mixed motives for their actions towards Native American children in the boarding schools. I believe that many of them genuinely thought their actions were for the benefit of the children. For instance, one official is quoted as saying, in reference to the naming process, that there was &amp;quot;no reason why we should ruthlessly thrust upon him our English names...We want to educate the Indian--lead him on, not stamp him out.&amp;quot; (30) That said, a number of them were undoubtedly motivated by racism or an attitude of cultural superiority. Religion also played a large role in boarding school life and clearly motivated at least some of the policies. It seems clear based on the amount of time spent on religion and morality that one of the primary goals of the teachers and missionaries was to promote conversions to Christianity. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-06T21:36:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Background (Please post!) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Background (Please post!)==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American.  Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles.  What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)?  What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)?  Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon&amp;#039;s American West class I am taking this semester.  We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited.  I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don&amp;#039;t know much about it. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I learned briefly about Native Americans in high school, most of my knowledge and understanding of Native Americans is the result of my college courses, mainly Dr. Devine&amp;#039;s Seminar on Native American-White Relations and Dr. Moon&amp;#039;s History of the American West class. Both courses touched upon these two Native American groups and the seminar expanded upon the experience of the Cherokee and their removal. I know that these courses have allowed me to have a more well-rounded understanding of Native American life and cultural practices. However, I realize that I have more to learn about Native peoples, particularly understanding American history from their perspective. Media and modern popular culture has undoubtedly also influenced our understanding of these and other Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Perdue Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article.  However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work.  I don&amp;#039;t really agree with this.  I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;had&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to, not because they were saints.  They didn&amp;#039;t object because they didn&amp;#039;t know any different.  Also, other than mentioning that  men felt that farming was women&amp;#039;s work, she didn&amp;#039;t go in depth on how emasculated men were.  Did any one notice that she used the explorers&amp;#039; accounts for evidence?  She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period.  I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious.  Who&amp;#039;s standard is she using?  Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century.  But it&amp;#039;s not what I expected from a modern historian.  She didn&amp;#039;t question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article.  However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women&amp;#039;s roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing.  The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power.  They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother&amp;#039;s side, determine the fate of war captives, etc.  It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don&amp;#039;t think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adams Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families.  I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system.  But especially with the &amp;quot;forced procurement&amp;quot; of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly.  Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don&amp;#039;t mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I thought it was very well written and entertaining.  I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real.  I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to &amp;quot;civilize&amp;quot; these Native Americans.  It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the &amp;quot;right thing&amp;quot; it really doesn&amp;#039;t excuse them for it. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Question:&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before advancing on Rebecca&amp;#039;s questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was.  I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans.  I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other.  In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture.  Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist.  But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of &amp;quot;civilizing&amp;quot; Native Americans. --Joe C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-06T21:31:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Perdue Article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Background (Please post!)==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;This is one of the weeks that the group we are reading about is not Anglo-American.  Background and context play an important role in shaping our understanding of these two articles.  What background do you have of the two main groups discussed (Cherokee and Sioux)?  What have you learned about these topics(from other classes, high school, etc.)?  Why might our own background knowledge influence how we interpret Native Americans?&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t studied Native Americans in any of my college history classes but I remember studying them in high school. We focused on cultural practices (longhouses versus teepees essentially). We also talked about unfair treaties and the encroachment of Anglos on Indian land. We did NOT study anything about boarding schools or the various other attempts made by the Anglos to assimilate, convert, or get rid of the Native Americans. I know that when I approach these readings I am predisposed to be highly sympathetic towards Native Americans because their stories are so sad. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I learned about Native Americans in high school, most of my recent knowledge is from Professor Moon&amp;#039;s American West class I am taking this semester.  We have talked a little about the boarding school experience and Native American life in general. Other than that my Native American knowledge is very limited.  I am also very sympathetic towards Native American history but I do also realize that I really don&amp;#039;t know much about it. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Overall Comments on Both Articles==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Perdue Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perdue talks a lot about Cherokee women in this article.  However I feel that she romanticizes their role in society: talking about how gracious and noble they were to do most of the work.  I don&amp;#039;t really agree with this.  I think the women farmed, did manual labor, made pottery, collected firewood and cared for children because they &amp;#039;&amp;#039;had&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to, not because they were saints.  They didn&amp;#039;t object because they didn&amp;#039;t know any different.  Also, other than mentioning that  men felt that farming was women&amp;#039;s work, she didn&amp;#039;t go in depth on how emasculated men were.  Did any one notice that she used the explorers&amp;#039; accounts for evidence?  She took them at face value, instead of explaining the common point of view of people who interacted with Native Americans in that time period.  I felt she also used those accounts to propagate the idea that the Cherokee were sexually promiscuous and licentious.  Who&amp;#039;s standard is she using?  Thomas Jefferson believed the same things, as did most people in the early 18th Century.  But it&amp;#039;s not what I expected from a modern historian.  She didn&amp;#039;t question the reliability and accuracy of those sources, and I think she wrote this with rose colored glasses.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda about the evidence provided in the Perdue article.  However, in the event that she was trying to prove her argument that Cherokee women&amp;#039;s roles drastically changed between the 18th and 19th centuries was very convincing.  The matrilineal oriented family did increase the roles of women, yet it also created more personal power.  They were able to choose their husbands, trace their family through their mother&amp;#039;s side, determine the fate of war captives, etc.  It seemed to me that the role of Cherokee women was diversified, but it also gave them a lot of freedom.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting article. I have to agree with Amanda that men, while obviously not the focus of the article, were still not very deeply discussed, particularly in their relation to farming. I also thought it was interesting that prohibitions on the practice of infanticide were seen as isolating women (168). While most of us would agree that women should have some say in or the capacity to control the size of their families, I don&amp;#039;t think anyone would be able to condone infanticide. While we can look back and say that Americans had a largely negative affect on Native Americans, the eradication of such practices as infanticide could perhaps be seen as them having a positive effect on Native Americans. However, most of the influences of Americans on Cherokee women, such as their removal from political and economic areas, were clearly negative and detrimental. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Adams Article==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this article, I was wondering what the separation did to Sioux families.  I think the structure of their families already drastically changed with the introduction of the reservation system.  But especially with the &amp;quot;forced procurement&amp;quot; of children, the traditional culture began to decline rapidly.  Because so much of their culture was taught and learned (and I don&amp;#039;t mean from books), sending children to a foreign school wiped out chances to instill Sioux (or Navajo, Comanche, Kiowa, Caddo...) identity and caused traditional family structure to fall apart.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed reading this article.  I thought it was very well written and entertaining.  I like the added personal stories of the children who attended these schools -- it made it more real.  I never knew the details and the extent Anglo Americans went to &amp;quot;civilize&amp;quot; these Native Americans.  It really is quite depressing. While I think that the Anglo Americans thought they were doing the &amp;quot;right thing&amp;quot; it really doesn&amp;#039;t excuse them for it. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;b&amp;gt;Question:&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; What do you think about the intentions of the missionaries, teachers, and other policy makers who were behind the boarding schools? Do you think genuinely wanted to help Native Americans? Or they were trying to get rid of them? How much of their policy was about religion? How much was about racism? -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before advancing on Rebecca&amp;#039;s questions, I wanted to comment on how thoroughly organized this article was.  I was able to understand and list the actions boarding schools took to assimilating Native Americans.  I think that the intentions of the missionaries and teachers was varied: either both inherently racist and helpful, or one and not the other.  In the case of cutting the hair of Native American boys, I was almost positive that this was a racist action toward assimilating their culture.  Reading further into the article about changing the names to surnames, and providing the clothes and food, I think that the intentions were more proportional to helping the Native Americans become successful. In the even they made up names, provided poor facilities and were unaccommodating to the Native American children, the teachers and missionaries would have been more racist.  But now after looking over all of what I had just written, there had to have been some racist undertone to the assimilating process of &amp;quot;civilizing&amp;quot; Native Americans. --Joe C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-02T00:32:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 4 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments about Tuesday&amp;#039;s Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work.&amp;#039; It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren&amp;#039;t eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don&amp;#039;t think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife&amp;#039;s return.  It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad.  Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures.  You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that is was an interesting chapter but it didn&amp;#039;t seem to fit with the rest of the book. While the other sections seemed to rely more on the notion of cultural layering, this section didn&amp;#039;t seem to mention differences in cultural practices except for a few mentions of differing cultural practices at the very beginning. Rather, it seem to focus more on economic influences and differences in gender in relation to rates of divorce. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west.  I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn&amp;#039;t be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to &amp;quot;maintain a firm sexual division of labor,&amp;quot; they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-02T00:17:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Mintz and Kellogg */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments about Tuesday&amp;#039;s Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work.&amp;#039; It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren&amp;#039;t eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don&amp;#039;t think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife&amp;#039;s return.  It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad.  Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think these photographs really show the diversity that the previous chapters talked about, even more than the last set of pictures.  You can also see how Anglo culture was imposed on many of the other residents of the west. Particularly in the clothing that they are wearing in the images which for the most part is not their native costume. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west.  I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn&amp;#039;t be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Lacey that Mintz and Kellogg often speak too broadly and generally in this section. Something that Mintz and Kellogg do not mention in their brief discussion of American families on the western trail is that, in spite of their attempts to &amp;quot;maintain a firm sexual division of labor,&amp;quot; they were often unable to do so. Women often drove wagons and men had to cook when their wives were ill or unable to do so. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-04-01T23:02:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 3 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Comments about Tuesday&amp;#039;s Article ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really found it funny that the guys did not want to plant a little house garden, or even really thought about it because it was &amp;#039;women&amp;#039;s work.&amp;#039; It was also kind of sad that they did not think of it and were malnourished because they weren&amp;#039;t eating a good and healthy variety of food. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
What pressures did Intermarried couples face?--Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley listed several pressures facing intermarried couples in the West, most of which were related to the family, the community, or legislation. Some of the more specific pressures were related to religion and differences in cultural values. When each individual ascribed too very different ideas about faith, children, and even methods of communication, problems easily resulted. Yet, I believe that on some level, every couple, intermarried or otherwise, had to make concessions or discuss some issues on which they differed. I don&amp;#039;t think one can assume that simply because two people come from the same culture or race they shared the exact same values or customs. To be sure, intermarried couples had more differences and hurdles to overcome but I think that every couple would have faced at least a few of the same pressures and challenges. --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What advantages did intermarried couples have?---Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures on Pages 102-111==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amused with picture number 18 because I thought the idea that someone would post an item like this, along with a reward for the wife&amp;#039;s return.  It makes you wonder why she left, if he was able to offer an award their finances might not have been all that bad.  Maybe he was abusive, cruel, or something else? -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Mintz and Kellogg ==&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that Mintz and Kellogg kind of sensationalized the struggles that these people went to, particularly those moving out west.  I feel that if there continued to be people who made the decision to go out west the risks couldn&amp;#039;t be as completely insurmountable as Mintz and Kellogg make them out to be. It just goes back to many of our previous statements that they overgeneralize, I guess. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Any other Questions/Comments about the readings from Tuesday or Thursday ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-31T04:14:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible.  Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures.  The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman&amp;#039;s bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic.  What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you?  The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor.  Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom&amp;#039;s mom than dad&amp;#039;s mom... but the thought gives me shivers.  I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation.  I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships.  Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns?  Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of this book is interesting.  I like Riley&amp;#039;s use of the term &amp;quot;cultural layering.&amp;quot;  I also noticed that she used the phrase &amp;quot;women of color&amp;quot; like the authors from last week.  The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups.  Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence!  I had a small problem with Riley&amp;#039;s discussion however.  I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment.  Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context.  I don&amp;#039;t feel it&amp;#039;s right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can&amp;#039;t be examined with tribes of the Southwest.  Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country.  I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The &amp;quot;Anglos&amp;quot; included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we&amp;#039;re all over the place. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example.  Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don&amp;#039;t agree with Riley&amp;#039;s assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It&amp;#039;s just more proof that we can&amp;#039;t divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say &amp;#039;this is how it was.&amp;#039; We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie &amp;quot;Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.&amp;quot; Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called &amp;quot;Harvey Girls&amp;quot; where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Celia - I love that &amp;quot;Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.&amp;quot;  You&amp;#039;re not alone in that.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Native American courting rituals were crazy.  I don&amp;#039;t even understand where some of them came from.  Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups.  I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce.  There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce.  People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person.  I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari &lt;br /&gt;
W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says &amp;quot;Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work.&amp;quot; Isn&amp;#039;t that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, &amp;quot;Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates...&amp;quot; I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one&amp;#039;s own perspective. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Celia&amp;#039;s comment, as historians we tend to like when things fit into neat little boxes and unfortunately, this book and the Johnson article just elaborates on how impossible that is.  The American West is such a broad topic to cover that no two families were truly alike.  The American West in the nineteenth century especially since it was such a transitional time for some white families traveling out west and since they were now interacting with Native American families who had a completely different lifestyle in general. Unfortunately for historians, there was no &amp;quot;typical nineteenth century family&amp;quot; and I feel like we keep coming back to this point each week, just more and more disappointed about how true it is. -Kelly W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed reading the first two chapters of Riley&amp;#039;s text on Western families. However, the structure of the work was confusing at times. The second chapter in particular, I felt, may have been easier to follow if the pros and cons of each aspect of marriage had been grouped together instead of in two separate sections. I did enjoy the fact that she spoke to the experiences of a variety of races, even though, as Rebecca has pointed out, she does make rather broad generalizations about some of the groups, particularly Native Americans. --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures ==&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41.  They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore.  The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with you as well Ashley.  But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting.  Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women&amp;#039;s domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph.  This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending &amp;quot;family portraits&amp;quot; to friends and family.  I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting.  It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress.  It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota.  As we grow up we&amp;#039;re taught about a stereotypical &amp;quot;western story&amp;quot; with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me.  But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn&amp;#039;t complete fallacy.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashely about the inclusion of the pictures in Riley&amp;#039;s work. I really felt that they added to the text. One picture that struck me was the one of Doctors from Hawaii. The caption states that &amp;quot;married couples often combined cultures in their dress.&amp;quot; Did anyone else notice that it was the woman who was maintaining the traditional dress in this image while the man had adopted American clothing? I wonder if this image is also speaking to the fact that men were more likely to adopt American ways then women or if women were more likely to try and hold on to traditional customs? --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_11_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-31T04:10:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Pictures */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I thought the ethnic differences in courting were incredible.  Spanish courtships was not unlike that pursued by Anglos, with more strictures.  The Native American courting rituals where the man sits at the foot of the woman&amp;#039;s bed with her grandmother as a chaperone was kind of creepy and seemed really archaic.  What would you be thinking if your grandmother woke you up in the middle of the night with a guy sitting there watching you?  The creep-factor aside, I thought it and other NA methods of courtship were really interesting. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on the creep factor.  Heh, that would disturb me greatly... more so with my mom&amp;#039;s mom than dad&amp;#039;s mom... but the thought gives me shivers.  I do have to say I liked how Riley incorporated so many different groups into the book, it gave a lot of easy C/C on the spot.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also would have to agree with both of you on the Native American courtship methods. But I think its also important to remember that the purpose of the book was to introduce the diversity of western marriage and families, and how they are associated today with the highest divorce rates in the nation.  I think the courtship chapter makes it clear that the limited contact between male and females of most cultures limited the options for whom they could marry and thus forced relationships.  Of course there were other factors as well. I was very intrigued by the common portrayal of women in these cultures. Would a rise in individualism among women in the west result because of strict familial patterns?  Or is it their portrayal in the journals, newspapers, forms of media of the day. Example: the woman who put herself as an add in the Waterloo, Iowa paper for courtship and then being compared to a piece of household furniture by an editor in an editorial. --Joe C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first half of this book is interesting.  I like Riley&amp;#039;s use of the term &amp;quot;cultural layering.&amp;quot;  I also noticed that she used the phrase &amp;quot;women of color&amp;quot; like the authors from last week.  The practices of courtship and marriage certainly varied a lot between groups.  Some practices were shocking to me, like the picture brides marrying someone based on correspondence!  I had a small problem with Riley&amp;#039;s discussion however.  I know that she was trying to show the dichotomy with the groups in the West, but I feel like Native Americans need their own assessment.  Their traditions may seem weird to us, but that is heightened when you take groups out of their context.  I don&amp;#039;t feel it&amp;#039;s right to lump them together like you can perhaps get away with (like her use of Anglo or Chicana) but the Chippewa can&amp;#039;t be examined with tribes of the Southwest.  Also, their experience was different because unlike the other groups, they did not emigrate from another country.  I like her thesis though, that the interaction among and within families caused conflict.--Amanda &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think you could say that about a number of the groups. I agree that I thought the same thing about her depiction of Native American rituals and practices, that even her descriptions of the different tribes contrasted each other. But look at the other groups, too. The &amp;quot;Anglos&amp;quot; included English, French, Irish, etc. The practices and rituals of each of these ethnic groups are as varied. Compare them to the Slavs and Jews and we&amp;#039;re all over the place. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was really helpful how Riley showed how the different groups of people dealt with issues like courting for example.  Having the different groups right next to each other in certain categories really made the similarities and differences easier to notice. Writing it this way made her point a lot easier for me to understand and I felt like I retained a lot more information. -- Kari W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Riley starts chapter one with an argument that high divorce rates in the West are probably a sign that courtship methods were flawed. She backs this up by saying that it is reasonable to assume that poorly matched spouses are more likely to divorce. I don&amp;#039;t agree with Riley&amp;#039;s assumption. I can see her logic, but I think that divorce rates are more closely tied to expectations about marriage (emotional fulfillment, compatibility, etc) and the acceptability of divorce than to methods of courtship. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this book has been quite fascinating so far. It&amp;#039;s just more proof that we can&amp;#039;t divide America into the North, South, East, and West and say &amp;#039;this is how it was.&amp;#039; We bring up movies and books alot in class (ok, I bring up movies and books alot) but the part in Chapter 1 where men looked for women who would be able to work along side them and provide good domestic help reminded me of the movie &amp;quot;Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.&amp;quot; Also, the section about mail order brides and the men and women who advertised for spouses and wrote to each other reminded me of an obscure Judy Garland film called &amp;quot;Harvey Girls&amp;quot; where she goes out west to marry a man she had been writing to, only to be disapointed when she arrives. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Celia - I love that &amp;quot;Harvey Girls and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.&amp;quot;  You&amp;#039;re not alone in that.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Native American courting rituals were crazy.  I don&amp;#039;t even understand where some of them came from.  Courting and marriage practices seemed to vary drastically amongst the different ethnic groups.  I find the difference between the different groups interesting. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Rebecca that poorly matched spouses was not more likely to cause divorce.  There have been many cases of arranged marriages that worked out fine and did not end in divorce.  People who were in situations like that dealt with the fact that their marriage was arranged and many times actually ended up eventually loving that person.  I think that the elements in living and surviving in the West along with the high expectations about marriage were the main causes of divorce. -- Kari &lt;br /&gt;
W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like Riley romanticizes Native American culture. She keeps making these sweeping, positive generalizations about aspects of Native American culture. Like on the bottom of page 53 she says &amp;quot;Ojibway women and men worked at different duties, yet extended mutual respect to each other and their work.&amp;quot; Isn&amp;#039;t that a pretty big claim? Another example is on page 18, &amp;quot;Despite the grace and civility of Native American methods of identifying mates...&amp;quot; I would not characterize their courtship methods that way. It seems like too much of a value judgment, which I believe is not super useful in a historical analysis, since value judgments are so much a product of one&amp;#039;s own perspective. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Celia&amp;#039;s comment, as historians we tend to like when things fit into neat little boxes and unfortunately, this book and the Johnson article just elaborates on how impossible that is.  The American West is such a broad topic to cover that no two families were truly alike.  The American West in the nineteenth century especially since it was such a transitional time for some white families traveling out west and since they were now interacting with Native American families who had a completely different lifestyle in general. Unfortunately for historians, there was no &amp;quot;typical nineteenth century family&amp;quot; and I feel like we keep coming back to this point each week, just more and more disappointed about how true it is. -Kelly W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Pictures ==&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the pictures provided on pages 33-41.  They provided the idealized woman stereotype and what women actually did and wore.  The pictures also allowed a glimpse at what people wore to weddings, including the traditional garb and adopted American garb as shown in picture number 12. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with you as well Ashley.  But the pictures section also reminded me of how men and women sent pictures of each other through letters as a way of courting.  Would these be the type of pictures that women would send to men in the west? A few of them seem to show that women&amp;#039;s domestic duties included work outside the home, especially pictures taken of the Native American women. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think these pictures were the kind that women were sending to the men, rather the ones of the native women might have been a part of a photographic study and the others for record keeping purposes or to send home to the photograph.  This was the era where photographs took off, as well as the concept of sending &amp;quot;family portraits&amp;quot; to friends and family.  I thought the contrast between ethnic modes of dress displayed in the portraits quite interesting.  It is also neat that you can see that the people who lived then liked to mix and match their ethnic clothing with American styles of dress.  It is quite fascinating looking at that from the viewpoint of assimilation. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one picture that really stood out to me was the one of Lake Andes in South Dakota.  As we grow up we&amp;#039;re taught about a stereotypical &amp;quot;western story&amp;quot; with the saloons and the ranches, so seeing that the towns when they were first being settled actually did look like this kind of surprised me.  But it was also comforting to know that this typical western town wasn&amp;#039;t complete fallacy.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashely about the inclusion of the pictures in Riley&amp;#039;s work. I really felt that they added to the text. One picture that struck me was the one of Doctors from Hawaii. The caption states that &amp;quot;married couples often combined cultures in their dress.&amp;quot; Did anyone else notice that it was the woman who was maintaining the traditional dress in this image while the man had adopted American clothing? I wonder if this image is also speaking to the fact that men were more likely to adopt American ways then women or if women were more likely to try and hold on to traditional customs? --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-26T09:08:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Bonnie Thornton Dill */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Porfiriato ==&lt;br /&gt;
Just in case people were wondering... Porfiriato was the name for the period of rule by Porfirio Diaz in Mexico.  He basicall controlled Mexico for the last 1/3 of the 19th century.  He planned to bring Mexico into the modern world by imposing order &amp;#039;&amp;#039;at any cost&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Long story severely shortened, he did bring lots of modern stuff to Mexico (telephones, railroads, etc...), but for the majority of the population life in Mexico did not get better.  Porfirio even used the army to violently put down strikes.  Eventually enough people start to rise up against him that he basically goes &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;m done&amp;quot; and hops on a boat in May of 1911 and heads to Europe.  His reign was a reign of terror, he killed those opposed to him and used the army to do his bidding.   I&amp;#039;d love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska&amp;#039;s class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I noticed and was impressed with is how Mexican families were flexible and easily adapted to change. They did a lot of moving due to economic reasons while trying to maintain traditional values. while moving the men would often die and women would take over as heads of the household, because of this they did not a strict gender role system.  -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One part of this article that stuck out to me was interracial marriage between Chicano women and Anglo-Saxon men.  This seemed like it was really only a viable option for lighter skinned Mexicans because then their husbands could pass them off as white.  Even so, it was a type of independence for these women.  I liked the story about the woman who cut her hair because she wanted to show her husband that he could not control her like her father did while she was in Mexico.  -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I think it was a question of comfort. I think the article said something about alot of Mexican women originally from urban areas married white men because they were more used to a certain lifestyle not involving agriculture. More intermarried couples lived in urban settigns in L.A. Also, whether the girl was from a farm or a city in Mexico, the fact that they could be better off money-wise was tempting. And if marrying a non-Mexican was an adjustment, well, everyone had to adapt to some changes. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the section on &amp;quot;machismo&amp;quot; to be interesting because it was another environment, like the Anglo American household, the prided itself on male dominance.  Typically Anglo American households did not revert to violence to ensure the gender divide (at least I don&amp;#039;t think so) but to read the Chicano households saw it as a necessary evil really stuck out to me.  I did not expect that coming from any household of the time period, really. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this article, I was surprised by how gendered the immigration process was from Mexico. It seems clear from this article that younger single men made-up the majority of the initial immigrant population and that women only migrated within the confines of family. Women also seemed to wait for life changing events, such as death and divorce, to emigrate. The role marriage played in breaking family ties while creating new ones was also interesting. I would think that while marriage would realign one&amp;#039;s priorities, it might also make them recall the families they left behind in Mexico. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually really liked this piece because it made lots of different family life experiences in the United States connect.  Although, its weird to see the phrase &amp;#039;women of color&amp;#039; and it mean more than just African American women.  I understand it completely... but, and please don&amp;#039;t see me as racist for saying this, I&amp;#039;ve always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I&amp;#039;ve never really liked the phrase.... however, I really liked the article none-the-less, and how it put into light what family members of each race had to do in order to survive.  Although, I&amp;#039;d like to point out that, at least with poor white families, many of them did similar things, but they were not trying to resist culture change and and keep their own traditions like the African-Americans, the Chinese, and Mexicans.      Just a little side-note question, was there only Mexicans immigrating to the United States? or were there other Latin Americans immigrating here as well? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed reading this article.  It really put things into perspective.  It showed how although these women came from different cultural backgrounds, they were experiencing some of the same things.  Each group had their own way of dealing with the discrimination.  I particularly found the concept of &amp;quot;compadrazgos&amp;quot; really interesting.  The concept of godparents crossed the racial and class lines.  It&amp;#039;s interesting to see how children bring people together. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading about slave families I was reminded of the threat we read about before of relocation or sale.  It makes it even clearer how white (Anglo) women had a very different experience in this time period than minority women.  For all groups, I didn&amp;#039;t realize how repressive American people and law were for the formation of families.  Also, Ashley, I like your point about &amp;quot;women of color.&amp;quot;  I never thought about it that way before.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked this article because of the author&amp;#039;s use of the phrase &amp;quot;women of color.&amp;quot;  It was nice to see it used to reference more than African American women for once.  This article really emphasized the racial differences in terms of women and society and it was rather eye-opening in that sense.  In a historical sense we typically think of the racial divide of this time period as black vs. white, and tend to disregard the other racial minorities. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this article was a nice synthesis of many of our previous discussions concerning gender relations and families. I was also surprised to find Chinese Americans and Chicanos discussed in this article. The comparisons in this article were very interesting. One fact that I noted while reading, was that while African slaves were encouraged to procreate and have families, the Chinese were “explicitly denied the right to form families in the United States.” (8) This article also highlighted for me the impact that American laws had on the lives and family structure of all three groups. –Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-26T08:25:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Porfiriato */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Porfiriato ==&lt;br /&gt;
Just in case people were wondering... Porfiriato was the name for the period of rule by Porfirio Diaz in Mexico.  He basicall controlled Mexico for the last 1/3 of the 19th century.  He planned to bring Mexico into the modern world by imposing order &amp;#039;&amp;#039;at any cost&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Long story severely shortened, he did bring lots of modern stuff to Mexico (telephones, railroads, etc...), but for the majority of the population life in Mexico did not get better.  Porfirio even used the army to violently put down strikes.  Eventually enough people start to rise up against him that he basically goes &amp;quot;I&amp;#039;m done&amp;quot; and hops on a boat in May of 1911 and heads to Europe.  His reign was a reign of terror, he killed those opposed to him and used the army to do his bidding.   I&amp;#039;d love to take credit for actually remembering all of this, but it came from my notes from Dr. Poska&amp;#039;s class this semester of Latin American History. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the things I noticed and was impressed with is how Mexican families were flexible and easily adapted to change. They did a lot of moving due to economic reasons while trying to maintain traditional values. while moving the men would often die and women would take over as heads of the household, because of this they did not a strict gender role system.  -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One part of this article that stuck out to me was interracial marriage between Chicano women and Anglo-Saxon men.  This seemed like it was really only a viable option for lighter skinned Mexicans because then their husbands could pass them off as white.  Even so, it was a type of independence for these women.  I liked the story about the woman who cut her hair because she wanted to show her husband that he could not control her like her father did while she was in Mexico.  -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I think it was a question of comfort. I think the article said something about alot of Mexican women originally from urban areas married white men because they were more used to a certain lifestyle not involving agriculture. More intermarried couples lived in urban settigns in L.A. Also, whether the girl was from a farm or a city in Mexico, the fact that they could be better off money-wise was tempting. And if marrying a non-Mexican was an adjustment, well, everyone had to adapt to some changes. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the section on &amp;quot;machismo&amp;quot; to be interesting because it was another environment, like the Anglo American household, the prided itself on male dominance.  Typically Anglo American households did not revert to violence to ensure the gender divide (at least I don&amp;#039;t think so) but to read the Chicano households saw it as a necessary evil really stuck out to me.  I did not expect that coming from any household of the time period, really. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this article, I was surprised by how gendered the immigration process was from Mexico. It seems clear from this article that younger single men made-up the majority of the initial immigrant population and that women only migrated within the confines of family. Women also seemed to wait for life changing events, such as death and divorce, to emigrate. The role marriage played in breaking family ties while creating new ones was also interesting. I would think that while marriage would realign one&amp;#039;s priorities, it might also make them recall the families they left behind in Mexico. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bonnie Thornton Dill ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually really liked this piece because it made lots of different family life experiences in the United States connect.  Although, its weird to see the phrase &amp;#039;women of color&amp;#039; and it mean more than just African American women.  I understand it completely... but, and please don&amp;#039;t see me as racist for saying this, I&amp;#039;ve always hated that phrase because I know it means not-white skinned people... but our creamish/peachy color is a color too... I&amp;#039;ve never really liked the phrase.... however, I really liked the article none-the-less, and how it put into light what family members of each race had to do in order to survive.  Although, I&amp;#039;d like to point out that, at least with poor white families, many of them did similar things, but they were not trying to resist culture change and and keep their own traditions like the African-Americans, the Chinese, and Mexicans.      Just a little side-note question, was there only Mexicans immigrating to the United States? or were there other Latin Americans immigrating here as well? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really enjoyed reading this article.  It really put things into perspective.  It showed how although these women came from different cultural backgrounds, they were experiencing some of the same things.  Each group had their own way of dealing with the discrimination.  I particularly found the concept of &amp;quot;compadrazgos&amp;quot; really interesting.  The concept of godparents crossed the racial and class lines.  It&amp;#039;s interesting to see how children bring people together. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When reading about slave families I was reminded of the threat we read about before of relocation or sale.  It makes it even clearer how white (Anglo) women had a very different experience in this time period than minority women.  For all groups, I didn&amp;#039;t realize how repressive American people and law were for the formation of families.  Also, Ashley, I like your point about &amp;quot;women of color.&amp;quot;  I never thought about it that way before.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked this article because of the author&amp;#039;s use of the phrase &amp;quot;women of color.&amp;quot;  It was nice to see it used to reference more than African American women for once.  This article really emphasized the racial differences in terms of women and society and it was rather eye-opening in that sense.  In a historical sense we typically think of the racial divide of this time period as black vs. white, and tend to disregard the other racial minorities. -Kelly W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-23T23:44:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Women */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Marriage ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today&amp;#039;s American families.  Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore.  With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous &amp;#039;are you right for each other&amp;#039; process and &amp;#039;should we marry you&amp;#039; process.  However, people can now get &amp;#039;married&amp;#039; in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren&amp;#039;t related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases.  I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village.  Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children.  This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
-=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gutierrez&amp;#039;s article was very interesting.  Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today.  I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence.  It&amp;#039;s interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries.  The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman&amp;#039;s promise for her future and as an asset to her family.  Women&amp;#039;s roles were very restricted however.  I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal).  I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman&amp;#039;s room.  Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez&amp;#039;s book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today&amp;#039;s marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deutsch ==&lt;br /&gt;
These chapters were very different from the other reading.  Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land.  From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained.  I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda, it did seem like women had more rights. I especially liked how daughters were able to inherit land just like sons, also that they were allowed to continue to hold any property they had upon entering into any marriage. This definitely has an impact of family relations because the mother/wife has more power and therefore more impossibilities.  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did.  Although, if I&amp;#039;d thought more about what I learned before with Angelo&amp;#039;s moving out West, most of this I would have figured out.  What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men&amp;#039;s work or women&amp;#039;s work. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also enjoyed reading about the powerful and influential role women held in Hispanic villages. It makes sense that women were the core of their society and it is nice to see that it was recognized more at the time. Many decisions also appear to have been made jointly between spouses pertaining to children especially. In terms of marriage, I was interested to learn that &amp;quot;age determined one&amp;#039;s actions more than sex.&amp;quot; (44)Men were not given preferential treatment but both the potential bride and groom had to rely on their relatives to establish the marriage contract. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_10_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-23T22:41:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Marriage */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Marriage ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading the two chapters on marriage, mostly in New Mexico, by Ramon Gutierrez I noticed some parallels that still exist in today&amp;#039;s American families.  Often, children still rely on their parents to agree on a proposed marriage (this is starting to die and in some cases is completely ignored), also people still tend to marry within their race (also dieing down as more people marry whoever they wish regardless of race, ethnicity, etc...), people still tend to marry within their own class, and churches still have a lot of say so, but not absolute anymore.  With the church bit, many of them still go through rigourous &amp;#039;are you right for each other&amp;#039; process and &amp;#039;should we marry you&amp;#039; process.  However, people can now get &amp;#039;married&amp;#039; in the courthouse where they sign a paper stating they aren&amp;#039;t related but by so much (hey, first cousins can marry in VA... so it depends on the state)and/org submit a blood test to show if there are any diseases.  I just thought it interesting how some of the traditions still persist today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the juxtaposition of Hispanic families against the Anglo Family ideal, from Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was very interesting. Women were at the center of marriage and the village.  Particularly interesting were inheritance rights were women had even over their children.  This struck me as particularly unusual as compared to rules of primogeniture followed by most Anglos. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
-=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Gutierrez&amp;#039;s article was very interesting.  Marriage in colonial New Mexico was very different than it is today.  I had no idea about all of the formalities, ceremonies and traditions that existed in this part of America while the colonies were fighting for their independence.  It&amp;#039;s interesting that patrimony was part of the marriage procedure in addition to dowries.  The chapters show the importance of childbirth and virginity to a woman&amp;#039;s promise for her future and as an asset to her family.  Women&amp;#039;s roles were very restricted however.  I had no idea that a daughter was passed off from a father to her husband (like ownership over an animal).  I also found a contradiction between the control of the Catholic church and the discussion of young men scaling walls to sneak into a woman&amp;#039;s room.  Though the Catholic church ran the community and had to approve marriages, it seems that even this society had its share of scarlet letters.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the two chapters from Gutierrez&amp;#039;s book were very interesting. One of concepts which struck me was how much importance was placed upon the consent of those getting married. I know that in reality it was not also carried out or properly enforced as there was also the consideration of obeying ones parents, but it still surprised me that it was given as much attention as it was. Like Ashely, I also noted several parallels and similarities to today&amp;#039;s marriage beliefs and practices. For instance, we still exchange rings, still have witnesses at our weddings to make them valid, make comments about carrying a bride over the threshold, and still have large receptions after weddings. I also know that the Catholic Church still requires engaged couples to provide proof that they are marrying of their own free will and not because of outside pressures. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Deutsch ==&lt;br /&gt;
These chapters were very different from the other reading.  Deutsch provided the context and background for Southwest and how the culture was harder to capture than just the land.  From this reading I got that women had more rights than what Gutierrez explained.  I also liked this article because it showed the class differences and extended to a the late 1800s.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Women ==&lt;br /&gt;
I actually enjoyed reading chapter 2 of Sarah Deutsch&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;No Separate Refuge&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Mainly because I admit that I very much believed a lot of the stereotypes, I had no idea that what women did was valued so much and that they had as much do in the community as they did.  Although, if I&amp;#039;d thought more about what I learned before with Angelo&amp;#039;s moving out West, most of this I would have figured out.  What really stuck out at me was the part that they did a lot of plastering for the community, which I would have put at more of men&amp;#039;s work or women&amp;#039;s work. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-19T01:52:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn&amp;#039;s article on Chinese-American families before reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first.  It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don&amp;#039;t really get in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on this.  I felt like I understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess.  Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The American Father ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California.  I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@  The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don&amp;#039;t know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we&amp;#039;re not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really got into this first chapter. It felt like I was reading a novel because I got so involved in this family and their situation. I felt really bad for the parents working for that owner and his crazy wife. No wonder Maxine and her family tried to escape them. One part that I found interesting was when the author was talking to the other children and she felt left out because her parents didn&amp;#039;t spank her or kiss her good night. Does anyone know if this was just a family thing or was it common in the Chinese culture to have family relationships like that, you know, kind of withheld.- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans.  It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren&amp;#039;t willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart.  Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also felt that the Chinese were very good about working around laws meant to restrict their immigration. Notably, I thought that the idea of &amp;quot;paper sons&amp;quot; was rather clever and shows how they used the laws to their advantage. It was not quite clear to me how they were able to report so many false births in China, it must have been fairly easy to do so. I wonder how many men came over under a false identity to start a new life in America and if their descendants were told who they truly were. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Brother in Vietnam ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am really confused.  We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title.  I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston&amp;#039;s writing is convoluted.  I have a hard time understanding her points.  Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source.  I don&amp;#039;t know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made &amp;quot;their whole lives suddenly make sense,&amp;quot; indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-19T01:20:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* The American Father */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn&amp;#039;s article on Chinese-American families before reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first.  It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don&amp;#039;t really get in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on this.  I felt like I understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess.  Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The American Father ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California.  I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@  The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don&amp;#039;t know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we&amp;#039;re not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this story I truly feel bad for the Father and his family. Losing a laundry business by being cheated by your partners, moving across the country to lose another job and two houses must have been truly frustrating. I thought it was interesting how when the father gave-up the mother took on the dual role of caregiver and nagger. She both pampered him and yelled at him to try and get him to find another job. I was happy to see that in the end he was able to start a new business and raise his family in a more comfortable manner. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans.  It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren&amp;#039;t willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart.  Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Brother in Vietnam ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am really confused.  We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title.  I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston&amp;#039;s writing is convoluted.  I have a hard time understanding her points.  Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source.  I don&amp;#039;t know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made &amp;quot;their whole lives suddenly make sense,&amp;quot; indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-19T01:15:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* The Brother in Vietnam */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Bridging Tues. and Thurs. ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think we would have been better off reading Evelyn Glenn&amp;#039;s article on Chinese-American families before reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  Reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; cold really set me off kilter, but I think I would have been better prepared for it if we had read the article first.  It gives some background into this group of people as a whole which you don&amp;#039;t really get in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; until you get to the section on laws as relating to Chinese immigrants. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Lacey on this.  I felt like I understood &amp;#039;&amp;#039;China Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; more after reading the article, but on the other hand I had to think more about the reading this way I guess.  Still, some background about Chinese-Americans would have made this book better to understand overall. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The American Father ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the first few pages were confusing at first, it was nice to see the narrator go back to the story about the father who got cheated out of the laundry business and took his wife to California.  I did enjoy getting to read more up on that part of the family, but it was still made confusing with the tid bit about the father being born in America after telling us earlier he immigrated to America and that he was in America when he married his wife, only I thought he was in China earlier when he married his wife... @.@  The narrator should stick to one story or simply say I don&amp;#039;t know how he got here, it was either A or B, but we&amp;#039;re not sure. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Glenn, &amp;quot;Split Household...&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is interesting how the Chinese found ways to circumvent the laws and regulations placed on them by white Americans.  It is both fascinating and deplorable how they could pull the wool over the eyes of these officals who saw them mashed them all together and weren&amp;#039;t willing to learn enough about them to be able to tell them apart.  Then there is also the fact that so many of these men were willing to separate themselves from their families for so long in order to be able to give them an opportunity at a life better than what they could have in China. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Brother in Vietnam ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am really confused.  We got a good impression of the Chinese impression of the Japanese here, but I thought the chapter would be really different based on the title.  I feel, in this chapter more than others, that Kingston&amp;#039;s writing is convoluted.  I have a hard time understanding her points.  Like we discussed before, there are clearly personal influences in her writing that make this not exactly a scholarly source.  I don&amp;#039;t know what to make of it, and am glad we have an article to supplement.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting section. I was surprised by the number of ways men created to try and evade the draft. I also thought that the brothers reaction to being in Taiwan was informative. The idea that by stepping back on his ancestors lands made &amp;quot;their whole lives suddenly make sense,&amp;quot; indicates that Chinese Americans did maintain a sense of connection with China, even if they had never been there before (291). However, it took him until he was an adult to understand what China really meant to him. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-17T02:04:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* The Father from China */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book.  The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers.  I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created.  There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read Kingston&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection.  This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Father from China ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this section I couldn&amp;#039;t help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want &amp;quot;an ignorant villager for his American wife.&amp;quot; (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== In General ==&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, in general, this book was confusing at first.  However, after reading the synopsis on the back of the book and trying to differentiate between stories it started making a little more sense.  Hopefully everything pulls together better at the end. -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Making of More Americans ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this section really illustrated the variety of effects that coming to America could have on Chinese immigrants. For example, Sao puts priority on his daughters instead of his mother back in China. Traditionally he would have been responsible for his mother&amp;#039;s welfare and care in her old age. However, he buys into the idea of American materialism and invests in a tv and a car instead of feeding his own mother who starves to death. Oppositely, Uncle Bon is so disgusted by what he sees as wasteful American practices and selfishness that he returns to China with the intent of joining the communists. It seems that while some Chinese Americans became acculturated into American society, others were repulsed by it. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-17T01:03:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* The Father from China */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book.  The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers.  I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created.  There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read Kingston&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection.  This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Father from China ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this section I couldn&amp;#039;t help feeling sorry for the father. To be a scholar and study for exams for so hard and so long and ultimately work in a laundry must have felt degrading. I also thought it was interesting that he insisted that his wife get an education before coming to America as he did not want &amp;quot;an ignorant villager for his American wife.&amp;quot; (68) Despite his work in a laundry, he still wanted to have the proper appearance of an educated man with a modern wife. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 9 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_9_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-17T00:55:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== On Discovery &amp;amp; On Fathers ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought these two vingettes were a very weird and unusual way to start off a book.  The first is a myth which strips masculinity and the second a sort of memory of fathers.  I have a hard time seeing how this fits in with the topic of the class, though it does deal with family ties and how masculinity is created.  There is also no bibliography or any kind of sources mentioned, which makes me think that this is a fictionalization of reality, which is also just weird. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read Kingston&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in high school, and I took most of what is in this book to be written in a similar way to Woman Warrior, in that they are all stories that Kingston was told as a young child.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Woman Warrior&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was a collection of stories that Kingston remembered from childhood, several with her own experiences mixed in as part of the collection.  This is what I believe is the reason for not having source material. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree that the understanding the context of this work is difficult at first. I did not immediately understand that this was a series of narratives told by the author. A brief introduction explaining the format and the origin of the text would have been helpful for readers to understand the intent of the work sooner rather then immediately diving into The On Discovery section. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Father from China ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the part about the two fathers making the trip to America very interesting. I am not sure which one had it easier, both the legal and illegal father seem to have endured a hard trip. The illegal father, had to smuggle into a small box to be transported as freight on a cargo ship, while is trip may have been harder once he arrived he was free to go as he pleased. The legal father, however, came as an immigrant, and therefore had to pass through the Immigrant Station on Angel Island and be detained for an indefinite amount of time. While it might be a harder journey, being smuggled on board a ship, it would be nice to be able to go as you please. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-12T01:59:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Some Nineteenth Century Lives */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== A bit from Tuesday ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I was thinking in class on Tuesday with the small discussion bit on horror films.  A thought occurred to me and I thought it better to place it in the wiki.  Until recently in horror films, everyone who had sex in the film died.  Most of the sexual relationships between partners were unmarried teenage couples.  In a sense, sex outside of marriage still is viewed as sinful and wrong, and led to death.  I thought it was interesting because only now are movies getting away from that stereotype. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Welcome Child ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Cowan&amp;#039;s comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, &amp;quot;A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life.&amp;quot; Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control.  It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it.  Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas.  I&amp;#039;m not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of &amp;quot;complex marriages&amp;quot;. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt this chapter talked a lot about over crowding and over population.  When I was reading it I was wondering, was the discussion of sterilization, restraint and birth control really aimed at middle to upper class families?  Walters has successfully separated the content from the context in this book, but there were other reasons for population increases.  Take immigration, for example.  &amp;quot;Excessive child-breaing&amp;quot; was not the only reason the population grew.  Perhaps the authors were referring to other classes and people, whose children were less desirable members of society.  So what does that mean about who might read these?  Did immigrants buy into this stuff?  Or were these arguments just code for trying to clean up society?--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perfecting The Race ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn&amp;#039;t be talked about and was not something to overly participate in, it was also a good thing. Control over sex was a way to make sure that the worthy humans could reproduce while those considered unworthy could not.  Based upon the previous readings I was somewhat surprised to see that Kellogg was part of the eugenics movement. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very surprised by the eugenics promoted by Victorian men. The idea that &amp;quot;superior varieties of human beings&amp;quot; (150) could be made through higher reproduction amongst the upper class clearly indicates class bias and prejudice, especially against immigrants. Really, they are portraying sex as the duty of these so-called &amp;quot;superior&amp;quot; men and women. I also thought it was interesting that they tied God and religion into the idea that all mean and women are not equal and were never meant to be equal. Rather, they believed that God intended for man to use his sexual powers to produce a superior group of human beings. This leads me to wonder how many Victorians agreed with this way of thinking. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Some Nineteenth Century Lives== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter with the &amp;quot;real life&amp;quot; experiences was ridiculous.  I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate these stories are, but they seem like very extreme experiences.  I feel like adding these stories into the advice manuals made these illnesses appear more real to the readers and was a type of scare tactic to get people to be sexually moral. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kari that many of these scenarios seem very unbelievable. For instance, Graham&amp;#039;s assertion that moving to an all vegetable diet altered the behavior of two young boys seems very unlikely. Yet I wonder how many people believed it when they read such stories in advice manuals. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section just confused me, maybe I read it wrong, but the books seemed to rant on about sex, masturbation, and birth control and then BAM! women&amp;#039;s rights in the epilogue.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book?  This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is from a book titled &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I do understand that it is supposed to be about males.  However, this irks me from earlier centuries and still irks me today.  There is a sexual double standard that exists that pisses me off.  Males get encouraged and praised for having sexual relations with multiple women, it gets it encouraged and they don&amp;#039;t get derogatory names for doing so.  They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I&amp;#039;ve seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride.  However, women can&amp;#039;t have sexual relations like men do.  If women have sex with lots of guys she gets called whore, slut, hoe, prostitute, etc...  The double standard is so annoying!  I&amp;#039;m not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I&amp;#039;m just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the double standard irritating.  Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action.  I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship.  Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As mentioned above the double standard between sexual behaviors of men and women was interesting, but what I found particularly interesting was the class double standard. As we discussed briefly in class on Tuesday, Dr. Blackwell alluded to a double standard based upon prostitution due to class and once again we see this. We see this double standard with prostitution, but also with lower class girls. I think it was very interesting that it was not deemed as impure to have sexual relations with a lower class girl. It was best summed up with the statement, “sex and nice girls should have nothing to do with each other.” – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the courtship section of the chapter Rotundo talks about the fact that men responded to their beloveds&amp;#039; letters more quickly than women did to their men.  I thought this was really funny because the woman that I am writing my paper was almost twice as prolific than her husband in letter writing.  This might be that her letters to him survived better than his, or any number of other reasons, but the fact that Edith appears to be an outlier made me giggle. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lacey has already mentioned the lengthy and more frequent love letters written by men which I also thought was interesting. I was really surprised that these love letters were the typical behavior of men. Since marriage had such a strong emphasis on manhood I would think expressing such emotions, especially in long love letters would be seen as more feminine. I can understand the eagerness of men to get married, but I would think it would be deemed by society as more appropriate for them to express it in their eagerness to find jobs or pressure women to shorter engagements, not in love letters. – Mary Beth  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that is was a very interesting article. The article really portrayed courting as a power struggle between men and women, something which I had never considered before. What surprised me in reading this article was the length of some of the courtships. I understand that men were expected to be capable of financially caring for their wives before they could get married but I can imagine how frustrating it would be to find the right person and wait three and four and five years to marry them. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-12T01:41:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Perfecting The Race */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== A bit from Tuesday ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I was thinking in class on Tuesday with the small discussion bit on horror films.  A thought occurred to me and I thought it better to place it in the wiki.  Until recently in horror films, everyone who had sex in the film died.  Most of the sexual relationships between partners were unmarried teenage couples.  In a sense, sex outside of marriage still is viewed as sinful and wrong, and led to death.  I thought it was interesting because only now are movies getting away from that stereotype. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Welcome Child ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Cowan&amp;#039;s comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, &amp;quot;A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life.&amp;quot; Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control.  It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it.  Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas.  I&amp;#039;m not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of &amp;quot;complex marriages&amp;quot;. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt this chapter talked a lot about over crowding and over population.  When I was reading it I was wondering, was the discussion of sterilization, restraint and birth control really aimed at middle to upper class families?  Walters has successfully separated the content from the context in this book, but there were other reasons for population increases.  Take immigration, for example.  &amp;quot;Excessive child-breaing&amp;quot; was not the only reason the population grew.  Perhaps the authors were referring to other classes and people, whose children were less desirable members of society.  So what does that mean about who might read these?  Did immigrants buy into this stuff?  Or were these arguments just code for trying to clean up society?--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perfecting The Race ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn&amp;#039;t be talked about and was not something to overly participate in, it was also a good thing. Control over sex was a way to make sure that the worthy humans could reproduce while those considered unworthy could not.  Based upon the previous readings I was somewhat surprised to see that Kellogg was part of the eugenics movement. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very surprised by the eugenics promoted by Victorian men. The idea that &amp;quot;superior varieties of human beings&amp;quot; (150) could be made through higher reproduction amongst the upper class clearly indicates class bias and prejudice, especially against immigrants. Really, they are portraying sex as the duty of these so-called &amp;quot;superior&amp;quot; men and women. I also thought it was interesting that they tied God and religion into the idea that all mean and women are not equal and were never meant to be equal. Rather, they believed that God intended for man to use his sexual powers to produce a superior group of human beings. This leads me to wonder how many Victorians agreed with this way of thinking. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Some Nineteenth Century Lives== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter with the &amp;quot;real life&amp;quot; experiences was ridiculous.  I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate these stories are, but they seem like very extreme experiences.  I feel like adding these stories into the advice manuals made these illnesses appear more real to the readers and was a type of scare tactic to get people to be sexually moral. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section just confused me, maybe I read it wrong, but the books seemed to rant on about sex, masturbation, and birth control and then BAM! women&amp;#039;s rights in the epilogue.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book?  This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is from a book titled &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I do understand that it is supposed to be about males.  However, this irks me from earlier centuries and still irks me today.  There is a sexual double standard that exists that pisses me off.  Males get encouraged and praised for having sexual relations with multiple women, it gets it encouraged and they don&amp;#039;t get derogatory names for doing so.  They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I&amp;#039;ve seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride.  However, women can&amp;#039;t have sexual relations like men do.  If women have sex with lots of guys she gets called whore, slut, hoe, prostitute, etc...  The double standard is so annoying!  I&amp;#039;m not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I&amp;#039;m just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the double standard irritating.  Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action.  I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship.  Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the courtship section of the chapter Rotundo talks about the fact that men responded to their beloveds&amp;#039; letters more quickly than women did to their men.  I thought this was really funny because the woman that I am writing my paper was almost twice as prolific than her husband in letter writing.  This might be that her letters to him survived better than his, or any number of other reasons, but the fact that Edith appears to be an outlier made me giggle. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that is was a very interesting article. The article really portrayed courting as a power struggle between men and women, something which I had never considered before. What surprised me in reading this article was the length of some of the courtships. I understand that men were expected to be capable of financially caring for their wives before they could get married but I can imagine how frustrating it would be to find the right person and wait three and four and five years to marry them. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-12T01:06:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Rotundo: Chapter 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== A bit from Tuesday ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I was thinking in class on Tuesday with the small discussion bit on horror films.  A thought occurred to me and I thought it better to place it in the wiki.  Until recently in horror films, everyone who had sex in the film died.  Most of the sexual relationships between partners were unmarried teenage couples.  In a sense, sex outside of marriage still is viewed as sinful and wrong, and led to death.  I thought it was interesting because only now are movies getting away from that stereotype. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Welcome Child ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Cowan&amp;#039;s comment on how a marriage is not complete nor is a life without having a child. He says, &amp;quot;A married life without children is an unlovable and unsatisfactory life.&amp;quot; Men and women have to rear a child to have any self worth in the world. While I don&amp;#039;t necessarily agree with his comment, I do feel that raising a child is a noteworthy and important task. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The majority of this chapter talked about the arguments for and against birth control.  It was interesting to read about all the different reasons why people were for or against it.  Also, the main sources used to promote birth control were written by John Humphrey Noyes of the Oneidas.  I&amp;#039;m not sure how representative that is of the 19th century views for birth control because the Oneidas did not have the biggest following and had very controversial ideas of &amp;quot;complex marriages&amp;quot;. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt this chapter talked a lot about over crowding and over population.  When I was reading it I was wondering, was the discussion of sterilization, restraint and birth control really aimed at middle to upper class families?  Walters has successfully separated the content from the context in this book, but there were other reasons for population increases.  Take immigration, for example.  &amp;quot;Excessive child-breaing&amp;quot; was not the only reason the population grew.  Perhaps the authors were referring to other classes and people, whose children were less desirable members of society.  So what does that mean about who might read these?  Did immigrants buy into this stuff?  Or were these arguments just code for trying to clean up society?--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Perfecting The Race ==&lt;br /&gt;
I found it very interesting how while many Victorian writers felt that sex was something that shouldn&amp;#039;t be talked about and was not something to overly participate in, it was also a good thing. Control over sex was a way to make sure that the worthy humans could reproduce while those considered unworthy could not.  Based upon the previous readings I was somewhat surprised to see that Kellogg was part of the eugenics movement. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Some Nineteenth Century Lives== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter with the &amp;quot;real life&amp;quot; experiences was ridiculous.  I don&amp;#039;t know how accurate these stories are, but they seem like very extreme experiences.  I feel like adding these stories into the advice manuals made these illnesses appear more real to the readers and was a type of scare tactic to get people to be sexually moral. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
This section just confused me, maybe I read it wrong, but the books seemed to rant on about sex, masturbation, and birth control and then BAM! women&amp;#039;s rights in the epilogue.  Shouldn&amp;#039;t there have been some mention of that elsewhere in the book?  This is a very confusing and annoying book.... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rotundo: Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is from a book titled &amp;#039;&amp;#039;American Manhood&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I do understand that it is supposed to be about males.  However, this irks me from earlier centuries and still irks me today.  There is a sexual double standard that exists that pisses me off.  Males get encouraged and praised for having sexual relations with multiple women, it gets it encouraged and they don&amp;#039;t get derogatory names for doing so.  They get called player and man-whore is a phrase that I&amp;#039;ve seen guys only take with pride and usually given to them with pride.  However, women can&amp;#039;t have sexual relations like men do.  If women have sex with lots of guys she gets called whore, slut, hoe, prostitute, etc...  The double standard is so annoying!  I&amp;#039;m not saying men and women should go around and have sex with everything that walks and everything be all hunky dorey, I&amp;#039;m just annoyed with the double standards that have been in place for centuries and are still in place today.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the double standard irritating.  Women were expected to be so much more moral and proper than men were and quite frequently they ended up with a ruined reputation for some minor action.  I thought that some of that was interesting, however, especially in the section on courtship.  Rotundo makes some interesting comments on women who were considered coquettes and the fact that king of behavior might be their only way to grasp control in the situation and they were seen as manipulative or vain and flighty. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also in the courtship section of the chapter Rotundo talks about the fact that men responded to their beloveds&amp;#039; letters more quickly than women did to their men.  I thought this was really funny because the woman that I am writing my paper was almost twice as prolific than her husband in letter writing.  This might be that her letters to him survived better than his, or any number of other reasons, but the fact that Edith appears to be an outlier made me giggle. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that is was a very interesting article. The article really portrayed courting as a power struggle between men and women, something which I had never considered before. What surprised me in reading this article was the length of some of the courtships. I understand that men were expected to be capable of financially caring for their wives before they could get married but I can imagine how frustrating it would be to find the right person and wait three and four and five years to marry them. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-10T01:44:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Ideas ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it.  I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly &amp;#039;here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me&amp;#039; and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn&amp;#039;t because the preface and intro had the author&amp;#039;s speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author&amp;#039;s speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wasn&amp;#039;t really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing.  I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water.  Well, duh.  The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn&amp;#039;t getting enough nutrients they don&amp;#039;t have the desire to mate and reproduce.  Well, in the long run we&amp;#039;d have those same instincts, so if our bodies don&amp;#039;t have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don&amp;#039;t have the nutrients.  That, or because we&amp;#039;re still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  Just a thought and a rant.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion of this half of the book is that it&amp;#039;s interesting but complete ludicrous.  It tells us something (I&amp;#039;m not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart.  But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides.  I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don&amp;#039;t see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo.  But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts.  I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat&amp;#039;s take on American prudery. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter was the first mention of family.  The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers.  Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely.  Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through &amp;quot;libidinous blood&amp;quot; (p. 52).  I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting.  And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from &amp;quot;overloading sexual organs&amp;quot; (58).  In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat.  It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk.  -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 3, entitled &amp;quot;The Path Downward&amp;quot; shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn&amp;#039;t take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation&amp;#039;s youth? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women&amp;amp; hysterics on page 72.  The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we&amp;#039;ve covered so far. --Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women&amp;#039;s sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men&amp;#039;s point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger&amp;#039;s survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that Evrie&amp;#039;s discussion of slaves really illustrated how subhuman some individuals believed black slaves to be. His descriptions make them appear no better then animals and his accusations are untrue. For example, as we discussed in class, slaves did attempt to have stable families and were negatively impacted and hurt by separation from those they loved. However, it is by labeling them as incapable of sustaining the same relations as whites that makes slavery permissible to him and other pro-slavery authors. The capability to understand and participate in marriage and family then, were symbols of civilization and superiority and, at least to some, distinguished black from white in Victorian America. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-10T01:37:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 3 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Ideas ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it.  I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly &amp;#039;here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me&amp;#039; and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn&amp;#039;t because the preface and intro had the author&amp;#039;s speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author&amp;#039;s speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wasn&amp;#039;t really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing.  I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water.  Well, duh.  The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn&amp;#039;t getting enough nutrients they don&amp;#039;t have the desire to mate and reproduce.  Well, in the long run we&amp;#039;d have those same instincts, so if our bodies don&amp;#039;t have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don&amp;#039;t have the nutrients.  That, or because we&amp;#039;re still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  Just a thought and a rant.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion of this half of the book is that it&amp;#039;s interesting but complete ludicrous.  It tells us something (I&amp;#039;m not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart.  But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides.  I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don&amp;#039;t see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo.  But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts.  I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat&amp;#039;s take on American prudery. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter was the first mention of family.  The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers.  Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely.  Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through &amp;quot;libidinous blood&amp;quot; (p. 52).  I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting.  And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from &amp;quot;overloading sexual organs&amp;quot; (58).  In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat.  It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk.  -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 3, entitled &amp;quot;The Path Downward&amp;quot; shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn&amp;#039;t take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation&amp;#039;s youth? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was very interesting that nurses were blamed for the sexual behavior of their charges. While the advice manuals in no way vindicated parents from being responsible for their children, it seems clear that it was the influence of nurses and maids of the poorer classes who were to blame for initially polluting upper and middle class children. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women&amp;amp; hysterics on page 72.  The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we&amp;#039;ve covered so far. --Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women&amp;#039;s sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men&amp;#039;s point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger&amp;#039;s survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-03-10T01:32:10Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 4 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Ideas ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So far I do like this read, but I do have one problem with it.  I know its just the style or whatever, but the Preface and Intro had a lot of the author and her ideas and whatnot, I loved the story that led to the creation of this work.... and the rest of the chapters are mostly &amp;#039;here read the source yourself and have very little comment and input from me&amp;#039; and on top of it at first it was hard to distinguish who was the author and what wasn&amp;#039;t because the preface and intro had the author&amp;#039;s speech in regular print whereas in the chapter the author&amp;#039;s speech in italicized... its rather confusing and annoying. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wasn&amp;#039;t really sure where to put this because it was mentioned in a few of the chapters, the whole eating thing.  I have my own theory on some of their theories, like the guy who said that sexual desires decreased/desisted when a person eats only bread and water.  Well, duh.  The body is having a hard time subsisting on the mediocre food its getting and, at least with other critters and animals, if the body isn&amp;#039;t getting enough nutrients they don&amp;#039;t have the desire to mate and reproduce.  Well, in the long run we&amp;#039;d have those same instincts, so if our bodies don&amp;#039;t have enough nutrients, it would be then possible for our desire to go down because we don&amp;#039;t have the nutrients.  That, or because we&amp;#039;re still hungry and we may think of survival before pleasure &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  Just a thought and a rant.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My opinion of this half of the book is that it&amp;#039;s interesting but complete ludicrous.  It tells us something (I&amp;#039;m not sure what) that people believed this stuff, wrote about it, read it, and perhaps took some of it to heart.  But there was no scientific proof or logical reason for most of the advice given, and I have a hard time understanding the rationale of the time period.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My feelings on this book have been interesting. I have to say this has been the most entertaining book. I have been sharing a couple passages with people and I even laugh out loud at some points. I agree with Amanda that some of this seems ludicrous to us now, but people really believed it then, just like we really believe that eating blueberries will prevent cancer. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
I am very glad for the preparation the introduction of this text provides.  I felt as if I was stepping into a world that was completely alien to what we see today, that is not to say that I don&amp;#039;t see the relation to the modern sense of American modesty and taboo.  But they go to such great lengths to have a conversation about they are so hesitant about that they talk in circles around the simplest of concepts.  I feel very much akin to Frederick Marryat&amp;#039;s take on American prudery. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter was the first mention of family.  The book discussed the incorporation of nurses and the replacement of mothers.  Apparently the advice of the time was to not use them if possible, but if necessary, to watch them very closely.  Then Walters goes on to explain how Dr. Kellogg thought sexual corruption was a hereditary trait through &amp;quot;libidinous blood&amp;quot; (p. 52).  I found the parts about how masturbation was a main cause of insanity interesting.  And, I had no idea about corsets being used to prevent blood from &amp;quot;overloading sexual organs&amp;quot; (58).  In terms of the advice about what to eat and not to eat, I was wondering what the heck people could eat.  It seems as though safe diets must have consisted of primarily milk.  -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Chapter 3, entitled &amp;quot;The Path Downward&amp;quot; shows many factors in the corruption of society from certain points of view. It doesn&amp;#039;t take the reader long to realize that many of these advise columns, or lectures or treatises were written by men and women from a certain social class with certain idealized ideas about what American sexuality should be. In what ways does Walters demonstrate the middle-class idea that certain classes contributed to the downfall of the nation&amp;#039;s youth? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just wanted to point out that Walters talks about women&amp;amp; hysterics on page 72.  The hysterical woman has been recurrent throughout the periods and topics we&amp;#039;ve covered so far. --Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his introduction Walters points out that there is underrepresentation of women in sex advice columns in the nineteenth century, which is apparently true by the numbers of sources in this book by men and the number of sources by women. Walters states that women were considered less sexual than men, so there was very little informtion on women&amp;#039;s sexuality to write on. However, in chapter four the reader learns about the role of women regarding sexuality- at least mostly from men&amp;#039;s point of view. How did some of these male writers view women and their sensuality? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Women were viewed in a variety of ways by male writers. For example, Beecher wrote, indirectly, about male fears of female seduction. Sanger wrote about women as prostitutes, a topic which seemed to fascinate many of the male writers. I suppose this was largely due to the fact that prostitution was an anomaly to men who viewed women as virtuous creatures with little to no sexual drive. I also have to wonder as to the accuracy of Sanger&amp;#039;s survey of prostitutes. How many of them would have been inclined to tell the truth or to speak with him and his investigators at all? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-26T05:36:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* &amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites&amp;#039;s book to play that big of a role.  Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then.  I didn&amp;#039;t notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect.  What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I don&amp;#039;t think religion plays a large role but it is there to some extent. I think that religion was used to help these women remain submissive to their men while they were trying to figure out a new way of living. The war changed so much for these men, and I think that religion helped to keep some semblance of their old life. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book.  Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat.  A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God.  If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures.  Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war.  Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women.  I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the &amp;quot;decline in their class position.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much.  I understand both MB and Ashley&amp;#039;s position.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some&amp;#039;&amp;#039; families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said.  But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon.  I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played.  It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the begining of the chapter as importnat in setting up the consideration of the roles and questions Confederate wives had for their defeaten husbands.  How did this gender conflict affect the end of the war era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting chapter. I have to agree that religion was definitely important to some men and women in the post-war south. Whites states on page 156 that &amp;quot;religion played a critical role&amp;quot; in the redefinition of the roles of men and women and mothers and fathers. I also thought it was somewhat ironic that Confederate men had to learn to submit in order to survive and maintain some sense of power. The mixed reaction of women to the end of the war also stuck me. It makes sense that while they would be upset at the lose, that they would also be glad to have their fathers, sons, and husbands out of harms way. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to the question about the role of gender conflict post Civil War: I think it was interesting to see a sort of ebb and flow of gender responsibilities and roles that changed from Pre to Post Civil War.  On the one hand, women were able to obtain a stronger sense of individuality and empowerment during the war by joining societies or working...at the same time, however they needed to still be strong loyal wives who supported their husband&amp;#039;s attempt to defend their masculinity and dominance.  After the war, women had to be &amp;quot;doubly&amp;quot; domestic to reinforce their inferiority in order to subordinate to their defeated husbands.  On the other hand, many women could not financially drop their outside work because their families depended on their economic input and families like the Thomases actually became more strained because the gender expectations pre Civil War were being challenged.--Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While reading this chapter, I was constantly left thinking about the effects of the then-unheard-of PTSD. Surely these men had to be coming back with all sorts of horrific memories from the war, and on top of all this, had to attempt to return to their roles and breadwinners, providers and caregivers? I can&amp;#039;t imagine having to deal with the nightmares, memories, etc of war on top of re-assimilating into post-war life. Count me out. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that by caring for the graves of these soldiers, southern women were able to become more publicly active.  Overall, social mothering gave women the chance to step out into a more public role. The different aid societies also gave women this chance but many still wanted to support the cause, even if it had failed.  By caring for the graves, these women were making sure that southern history did not die, and was protected. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a definite emphasis on the idea of &amp;quot;social mothering&amp;quot; in this chapter.  Whites reiterates the basic belief that women needed to publicly mother their men at war, regardless of whether or not they were their biological mother.  From sewing their clothes and doing their part to &amp;quot;protect their men on the homefront&amp;quot; to tending to the graves of the deceased, women had a civic duty to provide that moral and matronly figure in the lives of their men.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in this chapter how the paradigm seemed to shift so drastically in this chapter to the women being the overall caregivers and providers for the family. I have to wonder if the men or the women would have expected the role of the women in the family to be so vital, and I also have to wonder if - had the South been victorious - this would have been the case at all. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned something new from this chapter!  I actually didn&amp;#039;t know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association, were created.  I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting.  He explains the concepts of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Iron Age&amp;quot; and how they were polar opposites.  The Golden Age was all about peace love and happiness while the Iron Age was hardship.  These elite, white men are such hypocrites.  They talk about peace and love in a time when they were enslaving people to do work for them and as soon as they have to work for themselves its hard.  I bet the African American slaves didn&amp;#039;t think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the considerations from previous chapters certainly play a role in the degree of diffrence between the Golden and Iron ages.  I also think its important to not look at these tags as practical reality but rather as idealistic designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley! I had no idea there was a Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association created to help out with veterans of the war.  You never think about the loss veterans suffer as well; losing comrades, and seeing things during the war that not even their family can relate to.  It just makes sense for that sort of organization to spring up.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the presence of second-generation memorial organizations very reflective of the persistence of the Confederate mindset. Taking children from public schools to decorate the graves of the Confederate dead must have left a very strong impression on the future generation of the South. No wonder such organizations as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy were begun 30 years after the start of the Civil War. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article==&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war.  I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death.  It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children.  I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat.  These women often had to do everything by themselves.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how people, especially white women, perceived African American women.  White women were seen as pious and pure ladies while black women were seen as lazy, loud and vulgar.  This was especially true once the black women stopped working out in the fields and taking care of his families.  This was just another way that white women could assert themselves over black women, even though the black women were doing the same thing the white women were, if not more. --Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article takes a very different perspective from Whites.  Jones writes about contradictions of emancipation and what blacks did upon being &amp;quot;freed.&amp;quot;  I was surprised at some of the anecdotes she used (the slave mother wanting to bury her dead child on free soil), but didn&amp;#039;t find her ideas that novel.  I can see, however, how emancipation rocked the social structure of the time and how the economy was completely reshaped.  It would be like trying to incorporate a whole population of refugees into America&amp;#039;s economy today.  I did really like her article overall and think her points are valid.  This was a very refreshing read after Whites&amp;#039; book!--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before I read this article I had never considered the impact the years of the Civil War had on the family life and relationships of slaves. It makes sense that Southerners would hold tighter to their property and restrict their movements though. I had also never considered the effect that slaves fighting in the Civil War would have on their wives and families, especially those who were unlucky enough to remain in the South. Overall, I really enjoyed this article. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-26T05:23:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 7 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites&amp;#039;s book to play that big of a role.  Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then.  I didn&amp;#039;t notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect.  What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I don&amp;#039;t think religion plays a large role but it is there to some extent. I think that religion was used to help these women remain submissive to their men while they were trying to figure out a new way of living. The war changed so much for these men, and I think that religion helped to keep some semblance of their old life. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book.  Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat.  A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God.  If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures.  Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war.  Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women.  I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the &amp;quot;decline in their class position.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much.  I understand both MB and Ashley&amp;#039;s position.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some&amp;#039;&amp;#039; families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said.  But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon.  I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played.  It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the begining of the chapter as importnat in setting up the consideration of the roles and questions Confederate wives had for their defeaten husbands.  How did this gender conflict affect the end of the war era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting chapter. I have to agree that religion was definitely important to some men and women in the post-war south. Whites states on page 156 that &amp;quot;religion played a critical role&amp;quot; in the redefinition of the roles of men and women and mothers and fathers. I also thought it was somewhat ironic that Confederate men had to learn to submit in order to survive and maintain some sense of power. The mixed reaction of women to the end of the war also stuck me. It makes sense that while they would be upset at the lose, that they would also be glad to have their fathers, sons, and husbands out of harms way. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to the question about the role of gender conflict post Civil War: I think it was interesting to see a sort of ebb and flow of gender responsibilities and roles that changed from Pre to Post Civil War.  On the one hand, women were able to obtain a stronger sense of individuality and empowerment during the war by joining societies or working...at the same time, however they needed to still be strong loyal wives who supported their husband&amp;#039;s attempt to defend their masculinity and dominance.  After the war, women had to be &amp;quot;doubly&amp;quot; domestic to reinforce their inferiority in order to subordinate to their defeated husbands.  On the other hand, many women could not financially drop their outside work because their families depended on their economic input and families like the Thomases actually became more strained because the gender expectations pre Civil War were being challenged.--Joyce&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that by caring for the graves of these soldiers, southern women were able to become more publicly active.  Overall, social mothering gave women the chance to step out into a more public role. The different aid societies also gave women this chance but many still wanted to support the cause, even if it had failed.  By caring for the graves, these women were making sure that southern history did not die, and was protected. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a definite emphasis on the idea of &amp;quot;social mothering&amp;quot; in this chapter.  Whites reiterates the basic belief that women needed to publicly mother their men at war, regardless of whether or not they were their biological mother.  From sewing their clothes and doing their part to &amp;quot;protect their men on the homefront&amp;quot; to tending to the graves of the deceased, women had a civic duty to provide that moral and matronly figure in the lives of their men.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in this chapter how the paradigm seemed to shift so drastically in this chapter to the women being the overall caregivers and providers for the family. I have to wonder if the men or the women would have expected the role of the women in the family to be so vital, and I also have to wonder if - had the South been victorious - this would have been the case at all. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned something new from this chapter!  I actually didn&amp;#039;t know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association, were created.  I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting.  He explains the concepts of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Iron Age&amp;quot; and how they were polar opposites.  The Golden Age was all about peace love and happiness while the Iron Age was hardship.  These elite, white men are such hypocrites.  They talk about peace and love in a time when they were enslaving people to do work for them and as soon as they have to work for themselves its hard.  I bet the African American slaves didn&amp;#039;t think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the considerations from previous chapters certainly play a role in the degree of diffrence between the Golden and Iron ages.  I also think its important to not look at these tags as practical reality but rather as idealistic designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley! I had no idea there was a Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association created to help out with veterans of the war.  You never think about the loss veterans suffer as well; losing comrades, and seeing things during the war that not even their family can relate to.  It just makes sense for that sort of organization to spring up.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the presence of second-generation memorial organizations very reflective of the persistence of the Confederate mindset. Taking children from public schools to decorate the graves of the Confederate dead must have left a very strong impression on the future generation of the South. No wonder such organizations as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the Daughters of the Confederacy were begun 30 years after the start of the Civil War. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article==&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war.  I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death.  It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children.  I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat.  These women often had to do everything by themselves.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how people, especially white women, perceived African American women.  White women were seen as pious and pure ladies while black women were seen as lazy, loud and vulgar.  This was especially true once the black women stopped working out in the fields and taking care of his families.  This was just another way that white women could assert themselves over black women, even though the black women were doing the same thing the white women were, if not more. --Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This article takes a very different perspective from Whites.  Jones writes about contradictions of emancipation and what blacks did upon being &amp;quot;freed.&amp;quot;  I was surprised at some of the anecdotes she used (the slave mother wanting to bury her dead child on free soil), but didn&amp;#039;t find her ideas that novel.  I can see, however, how emancipation rocked the social structure of the time and how the economy was completely reshaped.  It would be like trying to incorporate a whole population of refugees into America&amp;#039;s economy today.  I did really like her article overall and think her points are valid.  This was a very refreshing read after Whites&amp;#039; book!--Amanda&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-26T03:44:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 5 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we once again see the role of religion in the South after the Civil War. While, it appears to be less pronounced than in other points of this class, it is still an important factor in these Southern men and women’s lives. In my Religion in America class we just finished discussing the role of religion during the Civil War. My professor emphasized that both sides still viewed the outcomes as the will of God, which we can see in this chapter. Confederates were forced to submit to the will of God and re-evaluate their faithfulness to God, thus crediting their loss not as God being against them, but as a reflection of their lack of submission and faithfulness. We see in the case of the Thomas family, the struggle Southern families faced when trying to understand religion in the context of such great losses. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I still cannot see the role of religion in Whites&amp;#039;s book to play that big of a role.  Honestly, most of the talk about religion came from quotes from diaries, speeches, etc... that would have been common forms of speech and thought then.  I didn&amp;#039;t notice Whites particularly playing off on the religion aspect.  What I did notice was Whites discussing the hardships ex-Confederate men went through after they returned defeated and the attempts and ways they tried to overcome their humiliation and reinstate their masculinity in society. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I don&amp;#039;t think religion plays a large role but it is there to some extent. I think that religion was used to help these women remain submissive to their men while they were trying to figure out a new way of living. The war changed so much for these men, and I think that religion helped to keep some semblance of their old life. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mary Beth, and as we talked about on Tuesday, I believe that religion is highlighted as a theme in this book.  Going off of what Mary Beth said, I think that religion could have been used as a rationalization for defeat.  A means to shift the blame from themselves, ie the confederacy, to God.  If everything was divinely inspired, then it could not have been the soldiers’ fault for losing the war.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This chapter is the best example yet of how the Civil War changed gender roles and family structures.  Men who did return to their families strove at least to resume their position as protector, but the manliness of labor was somewhat undermined by the presence of women in the workforce during the war.  Also, the new position of free blacks changed the role of men and women.  I felt little sympathy for the wives of men like Charles Jones (p. 151), except that she had to adjust to the &amp;quot;decline in their class position.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Religion, I thought, was a theme in the chapter and book that Whites uses too much.  I understand both MB and Ashley&amp;#039;s position.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Some&amp;#039;&amp;#039; families used religion as rationale for defeat, like Andrew said.  But like we discussed on Tuesday, religion was much more accepted and mainstreamed at the time, so religious references were not uncommon.  I also thought it was interesting to see the role of the Augusta newspaper played.  It sounded like they stressed the importance of moving on after Appomattox, though some people were not able or willing to comply.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the begining of the chapter as importnat in setting up the consideration of the roles and questions Confederate wives had for their defeaten husbands.  How did this gender conflict affect the end of the war era?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that this was a very interesting chapter. I have to agree that religion was definitely important to some men and women in the post-war south. Whites states on page 156 that &amp;quot;religion played a critical role&amp;quot; in the redefinition of the roles of men and women and mothers and fathers. I also thought it was somewhat ironic that Confederate men had to learn to submit in order to survive and maintain some sense of power. The mixed reaction of women to the end of the war also stuck me. It makes sense that while they would be upset at the lose, that they would also be glad to have their fathers, sons, and husbands out of harms way. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this chapter, we see another form of “social mothering.” Women were able to appropriately and publicly participate in the memorials of Confederate soldiers. We see women tending to the graves and creating associations specifically responsible for the creation and upkeep of memorials to confederate soldiers. I found it particularly interesting the point Whites made that it was easier for women to homogenize deceased soldiers than the actual soldiers they cared for. We see again the extension of “social mothering” with the example of the woman who placed a wreath on the grave of a boy whose mother could not visit, giving the impression that women felt this need and this desire to care for all the deceased soldiers because they knew these men were someone’s father, brother, son, or uncle. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that by caring for the graves of these soldiers, southern women were able to become more publicly active.  Overall, social mothering gave women the chance to step out into a more public role. The different aid societies also gave women this chance but many still wanted to support the cause, even if it had failed.  By caring for the graves, these women were making sure that southern history did not die, and was protected. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was a definite emphasis on the idea of &amp;quot;social mothering&amp;quot; in this chapter.  Whites reiterates the basic belief that women needed to publicly mother their men at war, regardless of whether or not they were their biological mother.  From sewing their clothes and doing their part to &amp;quot;protect their men on the homefront&amp;quot; to tending to the graves of the deceased, women had a civic duty to provide that moral and matronly figure in the lives of their men.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 7 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I learned something new from this chapter!  I actually didn&amp;#039;t know that such organizations, like the Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association, were created.  I also (not that this is specifically chapter 7...) liked how Whites included the memorials and the different thoughts, debates, etc. that went into the memorials.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the speech given by Cummings at the end of the chapter to be really interesting.  He explains the concepts of the &amp;quot;Golden Age&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Iron Age&amp;quot; and how they were polar opposites.  The Golden Age was all about peace love and happiness while the Iron Age was hardship.  These elite, white men are such hypocrites.  They talk about peace and love in a time when they were enslaving people to do work for them and as soon as they have to work for themselves its hard.  I bet the African American slaves didn&amp;#039;t think the Golden Age was so golden. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the considerations from previous chapters certainly play a role in the degree of diffrence between the Golden and Iron ages.  I also think its important to not look at these tags as practical reality but rather as idealistic designs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley! I had no idea there was a Confederate Survivors&amp;#039; Association created to help out with veterans of the war.  You never think about the loss veterans suffer as well; losing comrades, and seeing things during the war that not even their family can relate to.  It just makes sense for that sort of organization to spring up.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Freed Women&amp;quot; Article==&lt;br /&gt;
Before reading this article I did not realize how many choices and responsibilities black women had to their families during and after the civil war.  I never took into account that families were often broken up by sales and death.  It was all too common to see single black mothers taking care of their children.  I was particularly touched by the story of the black women with two children under her arms, another child on her back, a live chicken, a pig and a goat.  These women often had to do everything by themselves.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting how people, especially white women, perceived African American women.  White women were seen as pious and pure ladies while black women were seen as lazy, loud and vulgar.  This was especially true once the black women stopped working out in the fields and taking care of his families.  This was just another way that white women could assert themselves over black women, even though the black women were doing the same thing the white women were, if not more. --Kari W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-24T07:31:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Introduction */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Book in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do.  However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work.  So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive.  I feel like I&amp;#039;m reading the same thing over and over.  I guess that&amp;#039;s the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there.  And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal thoughts in the Whites&amp;#039;s work.  I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work.  It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal that I had read in a previous class.  I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion.  The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it.  Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing.  It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion.  Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years.  Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women&amp;#039;s relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari&amp;#039;s argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands&amp;#039; infidelity or deaths or their family&amp;#039;s sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands&amp;#039; absence with a &amp;quot;Christian Resignation.&amp;quot; - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction.  Whites line about the &amp;quot;great southern slaveholding planters&amp;quot; really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history.  In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant.  All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders.  Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the &amp;quot;view from no where&amp;quot;) were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What struck me about White&amp;#039;s introduction was her discussion of men&amp;#039;s history and how it has lergely been ignored and simply assumed to be a part of the general history. I have often wondered why historians assume that men constitute the general history and women a separate history. White&amp;#039;s contention that men are as gendered as women is a good one and something which I believe needs to be addresses more often. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 1==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands.  I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to.  These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves.  And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence.  They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man&amp;#039;s perogative.  There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree it is amazing, I don&amp;#039;t think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites&amp;#039; big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man&amp;#039;s fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this first chapter encompasses the role of southern white males and their wives, I found the argument of why southern men of the lower social hierarchy and did not own slaves defend the interests of the small percentage of the Southern elite.  I personally keep forgetting that most males in the South were not economically able to have slaves.  However, Whites&amp;#039; argument is that slave ownership was the aspiration in the system that was grounded in white liberty in black slavery.  There was also the notion that if white men fell, they might fall enslaved to the revolting black slaves.  Therefore, the argument here is that the independence of all male householders was to hold slaves. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the discussion of the power Southern women had over their sons was very interesting. Despite the subordinate role of women in society, they did have power over one large portion of the male population, their sons. That said, they were expected to act in a certain way towards them and support them in their involvement in the war effort. However, their position of power over their sons allowed them to have political power and act as patriots by encouraging their sons to support the cause. I did not expect mothers to have that much sway over their sons, especially not in relation to war. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 2==&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to  a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort.  Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on.  Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly&amp;#039;s analysis of the overall picture of the Southern plantation owner and how they&amp;#039;re influence was limited by the war.  Although, its interesting that the author compares this to Augusta, Georgia which had one of the largest manufacturing centers in the South.  Whites also demonstrates that industrial development in Augusta weakened the influence of the elite southern class at the outbreak of war, rather than in the mobilization period.  As soon as the war began to consume the cotton industry and wealthy plantation owners were unable to keep up with the demand, they encountered their loss of power and influence. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 3== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men.  It was almost like they couldn&amp;#039;t imagine living any other way.  While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or &amp;quot;town fathers&amp;quot;, for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate.  It would have been like speaking a new language.  It is always easier to revert back to your first language.  The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society.  The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea.  Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the part about Turner Clanton who offered to sell meal below market value to the struggling wives of soldiers. I was surprised at how the lower class women had the nerve to respond sarcastically, criticizing Clanton for not doing enough. They expected him to provide more kinds of food, not just meal, and also to deliver it. I guess they were pissed off, since their society was based on this contract that men were dominant and protective and the women were dependent and obedient. All of a sudden the men were not holding up their part of the bargain and it seems like the women were pretty irritated. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found chapter 3 to be very interesting. I had never really considered the different impacts that men going to war would have on women of the upper and lower classes. I was also somewhat surprised by the treatment wives of common confederate soldiers received from upper class wives of planters, especially as their spouses were fighting together for the Confederate cause. That wealthy women would turn to their dependence on men to highlight their status over poor white women, clearly illustrates the amount of dependence women had on men in the Southern society. I believe that this chapter illustrates that for women in Augusta, Georgia, class often came before gender. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 4==&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South.  White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community.  Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual.  They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn&amp;#039;t feel emasculated (Ashley in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; anyone?) -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that &amp;quot;the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war.&amp;quot; However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And frankly Scarlett, I don&amp;#039;t give a damn. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lol -- Rebecca&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-24T07:27:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 1 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Book in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do.  However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work.  So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive.  I feel like I&amp;#039;m reading the same thing over and over.  I guess that&amp;#039;s the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there.  And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal thoughts in the Whites&amp;#039;s work.  I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work.  It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal that I had read in a previous class.  I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion.  The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it.  Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing.  It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion.  Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years.  Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women&amp;#039;s relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari&amp;#039;s argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands&amp;#039; infidelity or deaths or their family&amp;#039;s sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands&amp;#039; absence with a &amp;quot;Christian Resignation.&amp;quot; - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction.  Whites line about the &amp;quot;great southern slaveholding planters&amp;quot; really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history.  In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant.  All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders.  Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the &amp;quot;view from no where&amp;quot;) were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 1==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands.  I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to.  These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves.  And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence.  They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man&amp;#039;s perogative.  There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree it is amazing, I don&amp;#039;t think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites&amp;#039; big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man&amp;#039;s fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this first chapter encompasses the role of southern white males and their wives, I found the argument of why southern men of the lower social hierarchy and did not own slaves defend the interests of the small percentage of the Southern elite.  I personally keep forgetting that most males in the South were not economically able to have slaves.  However, Whites&amp;#039; argument is that slave ownership was the aspiration in the system that was grounded in white liberty in black slavery.  There was also the notion that if white men fell, they might fall enslaved to the revolting black slaves.  Therefore, the argument here is that the independence of all male householders was to hold slaves. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the discussion of the power Southern women had over their sons was very interesting. Despite the subordinate role of women in society, they did have power over one large portion of the male population, their sons. That said, they were expected to act in a certain way towards them and support them in their involvement in the war effort. However, their position of power over their sons allowed them to have political power and act as patriots by encouraging their sons to support the cause. I did not expect mothers to have that much sway over their sons, especially not in relation to war. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 2==&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to  a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort.  Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on.  Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly&amp;#039;s analysis of the overall picture of the Southern plantation owner and how they&amp;#039;re influence was limited by the war.  Although, its interesting that the author compares this to Augusta, Georgia which had one of the largest manufacturing centers in the South.  Whites also demonstrates that industrial development in Augusta weakened the influence of the elite southern class at the outbreak of war, rather than in the mobilization period.  As soon as the war began to consume the cotton industry and wealthy plantation owners were unable to keep up with the demand, they encountered their loss of power and influence. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 3== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men.  It was almost like they couldn&amp;#039;t imagine living any other way.  While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or &amp;quot;town fathers&amp;quot;, for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate.  It would have been like speaking a new language.  It is always easier to revert back to your first language.  The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society.  The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea.  Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the part about Turner Clanton who offered to sell meal below market value to the struggling wives of soldiers. I was surprised at how the lower class women had the nerve to respond sarcastically, criticizing Clanton for not doing enough. They expected him to provide more kinds of food, not just meal, and also to deliver it. I guess they were pissed off, since their society was based on this contract that men were dominant and protective and the women were dependent and obedient. All of a sudden the men were not holding up their part of the bargain and it seems like the women were pretty irritated. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found chapter 3 to be very interesting. I had never really considered the different impacts that men going to war would have on women of the upper and lower classes. I was also somewhat surprised by the treatment wives of common confederate soldiers received from upper class wives of planters, especially as their spouses were fighting together for the Confederate cause. That wealthy women would turn to their dependence on men to highlight their status over poor white women, clearly illustrates the amount of dependence women had on men in the Southern society. I believe that this chapter illustrates that for women in Augusta, Georgia, class often came before gender. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 4==&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South.  White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community.  Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual.  They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn&amp;#039;t feel emasculated (Ashley in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; anyone?) -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that &amp;quot;the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war.&amp;quot; However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And frankly Scarlett, I don&amp;#039;t give a damn. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lol -- Rebecca&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-24T07:17:55Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 3 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== The Book in General ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I know, I tend to gripe and complain about something in each reading we do.  However, I feel its part of the discussion of the work.  So this time, my complaint is that the book is very repetitive.  I feel like I&amp;#039;m reading the same thing over and over.  I guess that&amp;#039;s the point though, to show how Confederate white men were made to feel a little less masculine here and a little less there.  And how women entered into the public sphere here and there, and then how the emergence of free blacks blurred the Confederate white man mansculinity head of household line even more. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to admit, it was kind of interesting to have Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal thoughts in the Whites&amp;#039;s work.  I say this because I read part of her journal for another class and it was nice to see some familiarity in the work.  It took a while to remember why it was familiar until I was cleaning up the house earlier today and found a piece of paper being used as a bookmark in the phone book and it was the cover page to the journal exert of Mrs. Thomas&amp;#039;s journal that I had read in a previous class.  I have no idea where the rest went, probably in the recycling bin, but it was like a light being switched on moment. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the main themes I noticed throughout the first four chapters was the reliance on religion.  The women realize they can not control what is going on in the front and have to rely on their faith to get them through it.  Confederate women also believe that God will bring them justice against the Yankees, even when the Confederates are losing.  It was interesting to see how much their faith was a part of their life. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also noticed the women’s reliance on religion.  Perhaps they developed this reliance in the pre-war years.  Given the male-dominated society they belonged to, a women&amp;#039;s relationship with God may have been one of the only things they had control over.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Andrew, though Whites supports Kari&amp;#039;s argument in chapter 3. I think that their faith in Christianity made it easier for women to resign to their roles as subordinates. They could accept their husbands&amp;#039; infidelity or deaths or their family&amp;#039;s sudden fall out of society or wealth due to their husbands&amp;#039; absence with a &amp;quot;Christian Resignation.&amp;quot; - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Introduction ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry, had to add another heading because I wanted to make a comment about the Introduction.  Whites line about the &amp;quot;great southern slaveholding planters&amp;quot; really struck me because it is something that is notable in the divisions of American history.  In the normal scope of conversation we talk about Washington, Jefferson and Madison as these great men who did great things for our country and yet we ignore, for the most part, the fact that they participated in an institution that we find morally repugnant.  All of these other slaveholders are viewed as distasteful because a majority of what we know about them is that they were planters and slaveholders.  Perhaps this lack of knowledge about these men leads us to make many of the assumptions that the author enumerates about the reasons we think that the South made the decision to secede from the Union. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the definition of “free manhood” particularly interesting in Whites’ introduction. The idea that both Northern and Southern men believed they were defending “free manhood” points directly to how heavily masculinity was tied to the Civil War. Northerners were arguing that Southerners undermined the notion of free manhood by the enslavement of black men, while Southerners argued that to defend slave owning men was only the beginning of truly understanding their defense of an entire system of patriarchal leadership and control. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoyed Whites description of how the dominant people (white men, with the &amp;quot;view from no where&amp;quot;) were actually socially defined by their subordinates (ie. women, children, slaves). Along these same lines, White also talks about how white southern men defined their manhood through the institution of slavery. This immediately made me think back to our last book. I wonder, to what extent was the manhood of white Southern men defined through the norm of sexually exploiting slave women? My guess would be that the sexual exploitation of slave women was a huge part in defining the masculinity of white Southern men. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 1==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it incredibly fascinating the loyalty and devotion these women had to their husbands.  I still find it hard really understand a world where women did not have even the right to decide what use their own body would be put to.  These women had none of that choice that we have today, and some of them knew that their husbands were unfaithful to them with their slaves.  And yet, they were almost entirely supportive of their husbands going off to war to fight for their independence and seemed to have genuinely missed their prescence.  They wrote all of these shortcomings off as being a part of a man&amp;#039;s perogative.  There is no way on earth I would stand for any of it besides the going off to war in most cases. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree it is amazing, I don&amp;#039;t think I could have the same devotion and know that my husband was unfaithful to me. Most of these woman did not know anything different, they had no choice to miss they life they had prior to the war since that was all they knew to be good in the world. When their men left they missed the life where they were supposed to be taken care of, where there husbands were there to protect them. Yet at the same time I can imagine that most of these women were proud of their men. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found Whites’ emphasis on the threat of northern invasion on Southern masculinity and “liberty” to be particularly interesting. As one writer put it, “the forcible denial of the South’s right to regional autonomy would lead directly to reducing the free southern man to a position lower than the lowest member of the southern social order, the black slave.” White goes on to pose the significance of this northern threat to southern, non-slaving holding whites to argue that such a threat not only challenged slavery, but all male households, thus creating a unity amongst southern men against northern threat. I think it was extremely important for White to mention non-slave holding men in order to emphasize that the threat from the north was not only about slavery, but about an entire system of patriarchy. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is almost understandable why women supported the war, whether they believed in the instituion of slavery (as Cornwall did) or not (Thomas). Whites&amp;#039; big argument in this chapter (which I thought was a very good one) was that the southern men fought to uphold their place as male household heads and their white masculinity. This meant that white men believed that the abolition of slavery jeopordized their role in the hierachy of the South. White women, whether they supported the war or not or slavery or not, had to support their men. Sure, there was love and patriotic spirit and loyalty involved, but a major reason for supporting their men was because they depended on the men for support and protection, and this support and protection depended on the white males maintaining the social hierarchy. This chapter was very thought-provoking and though I have read about the southern white man&amp;#039;s fight to ensure his spot in the social heirarchy, it was interesting to see how the white woman fit into the picture- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although this first chapter encompasses the role of southern white males and their wives, I found the argument of why southern men of the lower social hierarchy and did not own slaves defend the interests of the small percentage of the Southern elite.  I personally keep forgetting that most males in the South were not economically able to have slaves.  However, Whites&amp;#039; argument is that slave ownership was the aspiration in the system that was grounded in white liberty in black slavery.  There was also the notion that if white men fell, they might fall enslaved to the revolting black slaves.  Therefore, the argument here is that the independence of all male householders was to hold slaves. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 2==&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the most interesting culture shifts of the Civil War is the focus from Northern or Southern survival in terms of what they produce economically to  a focus on how much one can produce to aid the war effort.  Especially in the South, I think that this shift to internal mobilization had a large impact on the way the culture progressed as the war dragged on.  Men of influence could no longer focus on making money, plantation owners and small farm owners were off fighting and women were now, not only running farms and plantations, but they were involved in wartime production as well.  -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of what was said before, I find it very interesting that while the women were able to become amazingly independent in stepping up and supporting their off-to-war husbands, they still found it necessary to have every proceeding of their various meetings opened and closed with the prayer of a male minister. Was this something that the women felt they could not do themselves? There are various prayers that can be said by the layperson, after all... -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly&amp;#039;s analysis of the overall picture of the Southern plantation owner and how they&amp;#039;re influence was limited by the war.  Although, its interesting that the author compares this to Augusta, Georgia which had one of the largest manufacturing centers in the South.  Whites also demonstrates that industrial development in Augusta weakened the influence of the elite southern class at the outbreak of war, rather than in the mobilization period.  As soon as the war began to consume the cotton industry and wealthy plantation owners were unable to keep up with the demand, they encountered their loss of power and influence. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 3== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that although all these women now had the power to be the head of the household while their husband was fighting, they chose to remain subordinate to men.  It was almost like they couldn&amp;#039;t imagine living any other way.  While some women jumped at the opportunity to become independent, most just criticized the men who stayed behind, or &amp;quot;town fathers&amp;quot;, for not taking care of them like their husbands did. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why change the only life you know? It was very difficult for these women to change their way of thinking and take over as head of the household. It was almost easier to just remain subordinate. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes, it must have been hard for the women and for everyone in general to imagine a life in which women were not subordinate.  It would have been like speaking a new language.  It is always easier to revert back to your first language.  The dominance of men was the foundation for everything in their society.  The family, the community, their economy, everything functioned around this idea.  Those women given more independence didn’t recognize this as an opportunity; it stood against everything they had known their entire life.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the part about Turner Clanton who offered to sell meal below market value to the struggling wives of soldiers. I was surprised at how the lower class women had the nerve to respond sarcastically, criticizing Clanton for not doing enough. They expected him to provide more kinds of food, not just meal, and also to deliver it. I guess they were pissed off, since their society was based on this contract that men were dominant and protective and the women were dependent and obedient. All of a sudden the men were not holding up their part of the bargain and it seems like the women were pretty irritated. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found chapter 3 to be very interesting. I had never really considered the different impacts that men going to war would have on women of the upper and lower classes. I was also somewhat surprised by the treatment wives of common confederate soldiers received from upper class wives of planters, especially as their spouses were fighting together for the Confederate cause. That wealthy women would turn to their dependence on men to highlight their status over poor white women, clearly illustrates the amount of dependence women had on men in the Southern society. I believe that this chapter illustrates that for women in Augusta, Georgia, class often came before gender. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Chapter 4==&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like this chapter really emphasized the devastating effect the Civil War had on families and the social hierarchy in the South.  White families were at their most vulnerable and to make things even better, blacks were no longer enslaved, endangering the position of white men within the community.  Women, once again it seems, also had to do twice as much work as usual.  They had to, not only cater to their wounded and emotionally unstable husbands, but they also had to look after the farms and plantations and continue the roles they acquired during the war, while trying to make sure their husbands didn&amp;#039;t feel emasculated (Ashley in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind,&amp;#039;&amp;#039; anyone?) -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes! I also kept thinking of Gone With The Wind whilst reading this chapter, and not just the Ashley character. The women throughout were realizing that they no longer had the power and status that they had held during the war. They knew it was coming, however. Going back to chapter two, on page 49, it is explained that &amp;quot;the existence of this society and its duties, will terminate with the war.&amp;quot; However, realizing it and coming to terms with it are two different things. Much like Scarlett at the end of GWTW, these women had to be wondering wherever they shall go, whatever they shall do. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And frankly Scarlett, I don&amp;#039;t give a damn. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
lol -- Rebecca&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-19T07:34:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 6 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading last week&amp;#039;s monograph and this week&amp;#039;s monograph, I have a curiosity question.  In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves.  Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)?  I&amp;#039;m not trying to be gross, I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it also happened in America.  I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During Tuesday&amp;#039;s class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...).  Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, &amp;quot;White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves.&amp;quot;  I figured since we talked about it, I&amp;#039;d go ahead and put it up on the wiki.  Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands &amp;#039;extramarital sex,&amp;#039; but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc..  I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. &amp;quot;Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile.&amp;quot; (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power.  In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn&amp;#039;t matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband&amp;#039;s indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter.  It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female.  Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered.  After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel&amp;#039;s case.  Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime  the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well.  The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind).  And actually, I have to disagree with Joe.  While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to &amp;quot;transportation.&amp;quot;  I was really surprised by this.  This chapter exposed many facets of white&amp;amp;black relations that are not usually taught.  I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves.  Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me.  After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Responding to Amanda&amp;#039;s comment about transportation instead of execution: I don&amp;#039;t see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as &amp;quot;valuable&amp;quot; and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Joe here.  As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out.  However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye&amp;#039;s point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner.  Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds.  I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her.  Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense.  Against any white man that typically was not the case.  -Kelly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this chapter to be very disturbing first of all. However, I found the case of Peggy and Patrick very interesting.  They were first given the death penalty, but the jury thought that Peggy received mercy because of her horrible treatment prior to the murder.  It was almost like these white men were trying to say that her horrible treatment was a rare case and that slave owners are not normally like that in order to give slaveholders a better name. -- Kari W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn&amp;#039;t be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Cash&amp;#039;s first question, I would say of course they lied.  The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child.  In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act.  Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing.  I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly.  Although it is possible, the white slave owning males&amp;#039; word was their only proof of innocence.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn&amp;#039;t white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage.  Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces.  I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179.  Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man?  I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man&amp;#039;s children and live with her husband?  What &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; she thinking?!--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I&amp;#039;m wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Celia.  Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave.  Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce.  The double standard is really ridiculous.  I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then.  -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter I was reminded of our past discussions on the role of the community on marital relations and divorce. Clearly one needed the community to be supportive of one&amp;#039;s divorce petition in order to have a chance of obtaining one. I thought it was interesting that while the community appeared happy to help a man or women who was filing for divorce and testify for them, they made it a point not to encourage divorce. As I recall, Stevenson&amp;#039;s section on divorce made it sound as if the community expected individuals to obtain a divorce under certain situations and pressured people to do so, whereas Rothman presents the communities role in a different light. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white.  The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rothman&amp;#039;s point about racial ambiguity was well argued.  None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda and Kellye.  The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that social reputation played a role in defining color.  Does that mean a light skinned slave is blacker than a dark skinned freeman?  It makes little sense to me.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I, like Kelly, was surprised that there were so many ways to categorize the color of African Americans. Also, I had never really questioned why ancestry was the means of determining a persons racial classification. Having read Rothman&amp;#039;s work, I now wonder why that was used as the definitive means of determining if a person was black, white or mulatto. If society truly wanted to not have a large population of whites with black heritage, I would have thought they would have established a more limiting system then that. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the &amp;quot;slavery was bad but everyone is equal now&amp;quot; approach to life.  Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says &amp;quot;Finally, they seem to feel we can move on.  Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago.&amp;quot;  He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a &amp;quot;slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we&amp;#039;re not like that anymore&amp;quot; sort of way.  So I have a question - do you think that&amp;#039;s true?  Do Americans today kind of, &amp;quot;romanticize&amp;quot; the era, so to speak?  -Kelly&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-19T07:09:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 5 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading last week&amp;#039;s monograph and this week&amp;#039;s monograph, I have a curiosity question.  In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves.  Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)?  I&amp;#039;m not trying to be gross, I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it also happened in America.  I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During Tuesday&amp;#039;s class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...).  Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, &amp;quot;White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves.&amp;quot;  I figured since we talked about it, I&amp;#039;d go ahead and put it up on the wiki.  Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands &amp;#039;extramarital sex,&amp;#039; but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc..  I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. &amp;quot;Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile.&amp;quot; (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power.  In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn&amp;#039;t matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband&amp;#039;s indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter.  It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female.  Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered.  After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel&amp;#039;s case.  Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime  the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well.  The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind).  And actually, I have to disagree with Joe.  While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to &amp;quot;transportation.&amp;quot;  I was really surprised by this.  This chapter exposed many facets of white&amp;amp;black relations that are not usually taught.  I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves.  Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me.  After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Responding to Amanda&amp;#039;s comment about transportation instead of execution: I don&amp;#039;t see this as whites intervening on behalf of slaves. I think it was totally self-serving. At least that is how Rothman presents it in this chapter. I also think that reason behind the attorneys was maybe not so much to protect the slave. Maybe it was just because the slave was a valuable piece of property, so the decision to kill the slave had to go through proper legal channels. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as &amp;quot;valuable&amp;quot; and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda. When I first started to read this chapter, I thought it would be all about black slaves receiving the death penalty for killing white people. But I was surprised at the number of sentences that were not death penalties. I was also surprised that when black men had sex with white women of sordid reputation, no male protection or were poor, they (the slaves) often gained the sympathy of white men. This is mostly because the black slaves were considered more valuable and less contemptible to society. This and, as Amanda wrote above, some of the cases where white men were lenient towards blacks were surprising. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Joe here.  As Joe points out the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female yet there are contradictions in terms of how/if/what punishment was carried out.  However, Sarah too raises a very important point about value. -Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wanted to elaborate on Kellye&amp;#039;s point a bit and just point out that, as twenty-first century individuals, we tend to forget that (enslaved) black women once did not have ownership of their own bodies. Because they were property their bodies too were simply a thing that belonged to a white slave owner.  Essentially, they were toys for their masters to play with, as horrible as that sounds.  I did find it interesting though, that at one point Rothman discussed the issue of Malinda, a slave woman who killed another black man as he tried to sexually assault her.  Against someone of her own kind, she had the ability to cry self-defense.  Against any white man that typically was not the case.  -Kelly&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found this chapter to be very disturbing first of all. However, I found the case of Peggy and Patrick very interesting.  They were first given the death penalty, but the jury thought that Peggy received mercy because of her horrible treatment prior to the murder.  It was almost like these white men were trying to say that her horrible treatment was a rare case and that slave owners are not normally like that in order to give slaveholders a better name. -- Kari W.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn&amp;#039;t be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Cash&amp;#039;s first question, I would say of course they lied.  The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child.  In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act.  Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing.  I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly.  Although it is possible, the white slave owning males&amp;#039; word was their only proof of innocence.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I think we are inclined to speculate that people lied about interracial marriages (and it is definitely possible that it did happen) I think we need to keep in mind the shame associated with making a public claim. Rotham goes to great length to describe the shame that both men and women felt. If a man was cheating it was not only embarrassing to the man, but in some way the woman was unable to fulfill her role as a proper women, including sexually pleasing the man. If a woman was cheating it was embarrassing for her, but even more embarrassing for a man who had loss control of his wife, particularly her sexual life, which attacked not only his role as husband, but his masculinity. While it is an interesting point to consider I think we must remember the public shame associated with all of these accusations. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn&amp;#039;t white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage.  Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces.  I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179.  Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man?  I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man&amp;#039;s children and live with her husband?  What &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; she thinking?!--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I&amp;#039;m wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I completely agree with Celia.  Those poor women who wanted a divorce had to have so much evidence other than adultery in order for it to actually be considered and if a man wanted to get a divorce he just had to state that his wife was sleeping with a slave.  Also, women had to prove that they were a good wife to the jury in order to get a divorce.  The double standard is really ridiculous.  I understand that my opinion is based off of modern times and ideas, but still you would think people would be able to see that back then.  -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter I was reminded of our past discussions on the role of the community on marital relations and divorce. Clearly one needed the community to be supportive of one&amp;#039;s divorce petition in order to have a chance of obtaining one. I thought it was interesting that while the community appeared happy to help a man or women who was filing for divorce and testify for them, they made it a point not to encourage divorce. As I recall, Stevenson&amp;#039;s section on divorce made it sound as if the community expected individuals to obtain a divorce under certain situations and pressured people to do so, whereas Rothman presents the communities role in a different light. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white.  The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rothman&amp;#039;s point about racial ambiguity was well argued.  None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda and Kellye.  The dicatomy for charaterizing slaves was intresting, but also valueable in seeking a better understanding of the legal factors of the day. - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the Epilogue, Rothman discusses a valuable point of view that most Americans today tend to default their way in to (for lack of a better phrase) and that is the &amp;quot;slavery was bad but everyone is equal now&amp;quot; approach to life.  Although rather cheesey, Rothman lays it all on the line as he says &amp;quot;Finally, they seem to feel we can move on.  Tom and Sally were really in love, after all, and slavery was a long time ago.&amp;quot;  He argues that interracial sex and the amount of time and energy whites spent hating blacks and both sides of the color line spent feuding is often overlooked in history classes today in a &amp;quot;slavery ended hundreds of years ago and we&amp;#039;re not like that anymore&amp;quot; sort of way.  So I have a question - do you think that&amp;#039;s true?  Do Americans today kind of, &amp;quot;romanticize&amp;quot; the era, so to speak?  -Kelly&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-19T02:05:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 4 */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading last week&amp;#039;s monograph and this week&amp;#039;s monograph, I have a curiosity question.  In my Latin America studies class, there were court cases where white men tried to seduce and have sex with black male slaves.  Is there any evidence that white men tried/did have sex with black men (free or slave)? And, is there any evidence for the white female and black female (free or slave)?  I&amp;#039;m not trying to be gross, I&amp;#039;m just wondering if it also happened in America.  I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is something people would have brought to court in America because not only would it be sex across the color line, but also homosexual which was just as bad if not worse. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 4 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During Tuesday&amp;#039;s class, we discussed what we thought white women might do if their husbands had extramarital sex (fancy word for cheating if you ask me...).  Well, on page 134, Rothman discussed this, if ever so briefly, and I quote, &amp;quot;White women responded to the extramarital affairs of their spouses with a combination of resignation, denial, and displaced hostility and vidictiveness toward their slaves.&amp;quot;  I figured since we talked about it, I&amp;#039;d go ahead and put it up on the wiki.  Also, later on in the reading it discussed how some women filed for divorced based on their husbands &amp;#039;extramarital sex,&amp;#039; but they had to also prove that the reason their husband was having these affairs was not because she was not pious, submissive, etc..  I just thought that was interesting in its own way. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I found interesting was the reason behind sexual violence. &amp;quot;Interracial sexual abuse reminded enslaved black women that their bodies were never their own. It placed black men on notice that their families were insignificant and their pretenses to protecting their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters from harm ultimately futile.&amp;quot; (134) White men raped their slave women to prove their power.  In response to Ashley, their wives wanted to prove their power over their slaves, and that it didn&amp;#039;t matter what their husbands were doing. These women wanted to make sure their slaves did not look at them differently just because of their husband&amp;#039;s indiscretions. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that there was a little bit of irony in this chapter.  It discusses at the beginning of the chapter that although the state of Virginia demanded that death sentence be placed on a slave who murdered a white or black male or female.  Rothman then goes on to state that Virginia communities did not always agree with that sort of punishment without all the evidence and particular circumstances considered.  After reading the cases of the chapter, it appears to me that the majority of cases went straight to the death penalty, especially in Manuel&amp;#039;s case.  Therefore, the argument should be that a male slave who acted alone in murdering a white male, regardless of the crime  the white male committed, the black slave would be on a one way street to the gallows. --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rothman certainly had more sources for this chapter and made his points well.  The cases were fascinating but I was frankly shocked by some of the circumstances (Ben, the wife and Gooding come to mind).  And actually, I have to disagree with Joe.  While some slaves such as Manuel and Henry were hanged, many were acquitted or the sentence was lessened to &amp;quot;transportation.&amp;quot;  I was really surprised by this.  This chapter exposed many facets of white&amp;amp;black relations that are not usually taught.  I had no idea the extent to which whites tried and often succeeded in intervening on the behalf of slaves.  Even the fact that some slaves had attorneys and their cases were brought into courts surprised me.  After reading this chapter, I felt that slave women had one choice in life: between rape or death.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter, I was struck by how much personal relationships and situations influenced the sentences of slaves accused of murdering white men. Like Amanda, I did not expect to read that white men often petitioned the governor on the behalf of a slave. Granted, as Rothman discusses, slaves were viewed as &amp;quot;valuable&amp;quot; and so many men wanted to save them for work, yet many of the petitioners were neighbors who seem to legitimately have had some feeling for the victims. I also was unaware of the frequency with which slaves were able to testify in court. Ultimately though, this chapter really illustrated the social hierarchy to me. That white men would stand up for a black man who clearly raped a white woman, because she was poor, really surprised me and shows that gender and class were, at least occasionally, as important as race in court cases and public opinion. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 5 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading through the chapter, a question kept running through my mind. Did men or women ever lie about interracial adultery, or was it always proven to be the case that the offending party was in fact sleeping with someone that was not only not the husband/wife, but of a different race? It just seems to me like this is a claim that could just be thrown out there no matter what and because of the scandal attached, there wouldn&amp;#039;t be much in the way of defense for the offending party. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Cash&amp;#039;s first question, I would say of course they lied.  The only proof of adultery only came from being caught in the act, or having a child.  In southern American society, especially within the legal constructs of Virginia, males were the more convincing because they were only guilty if they were caught in the act.  Both scenarios for proof of adulterous activity were possible for women and in a gender polarized society, white males generally had the upper hand and were more convincing.  I laughed after reading on page 175 at the list of men from Nansemond County that had told the legislature they acted responsibly.  Although it is possible, the white slave owning males&amp;#039; word was their only proof of innocence.  --Joe C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s interesting that Rothman explained that whites felt it wasn&amp;#039;t white supremacy on the line, but rather the sanctity of marriage.  Clearly just as Stevenson said it was much easier for men to get divorces.  I am really perplexed by the case of Sarah and Richard Hall on p. 178-179.  Why the heck did Sarah get married if she was already involved with a black man?  I thought perhaps it was about property and legal status, but did she just expect to keep having the black man&amp;#039;s children and live with her husband?  What &amp;#039;&amp;#039;was&amp;#039;&amp;#039; she thinking?!--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Correct me if I&amp;#039;m wrong, but in Chapter 4 Rothman was talking about how when white men were having sex with black women it was more a power thing, something to emasculate the black male slaves. But in Chapter 5, when white women had sex with black men it was a violation of their marriage vows. I am not a fan of either man or wife cheating, but I thought that this situation was very off balanced. Anyone else agree? -Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 6 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that there was 61 different ways to describe the skin tone of blacks. I also found it sad that even if someone was legally white as well as looked white, the community did not always accept the fact that they were white.  The most important the community viewed after physical and legal conditions was who the person associated with. Community standing was probably the most significant factor when determining a persons whiteness. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Rothman&amp;#039;s point about racial ambiguity was well argued.  None of the cases were clear cut and although ancestry was the legal determining factor, physical characteristics often played a role as well.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Epilogue ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-17T05:11:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book.  I&amp;#039;m not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me.  I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a &amp;quot;oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting.  Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went.  Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude.  Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were.  I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole &amp;quot;Those two people can&amp;#039;t be together and have a family because of the color of their skin.&amp;quot;  So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed.  I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn&amp;#039;t people just leave others alone?  If you don&amp;#039;t like what 2 other people are doing, don&amp;#039;t look at them.  If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don&amp;#039;t pay attention to them.  Let them live their lives and ignore them.  If they want to have a kid, who cares.  The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex &amp;#039;across the color line,&amp;#039; but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free?   Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s comments remind me of some societal attitudes towards homosexual relationships. Just like interracial sex became more of an issue when slaves were free, homosexual sex is seen as more threatening if same sex marriage is allowed. I think people were willing to tolerate interracial sex as long as everyone understood it to be taboo. But when blacks were free, and there was a possibility of creating a legally recognized interracial family, that is when people had big problems with it. I think the same sort of thing is happening with gay marriage today. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia.  I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south.  When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships?  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye.  I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War?  What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most.  I guess this was just my naive &amp;quot;The Founding Fathers are Gods&amp;quot; education but I didn&amp;#039;t realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was.  I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side.  Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly.  However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them.  Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson&amp;#039;s needs. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1.  One thing, however, did stick out to me.  I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner.  I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.”  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class.  We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders.  I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender.  Sexism?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting.  It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word.  In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms.  Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson&amp;#039;s relationship with Sally wasn&amp;#039;t considered imporper because he didn&amp;#039;t publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman&amp;#039;s sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people&amp;#039;s sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Responding to Celia&amp;#039;s question, I think that in some circles not much has changed. I remember the reaction that a lot of people had to Ken Star when he exposed all the details of the Clinton/Monica affair. A lot of people (by which I mean Democrats) felt like it was inappropriate. -- Rebecca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Andrew, I&amp;#039;ve read a lot about Tom and Sally.  Rothman&amp;#039;s scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation.  Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence.  His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman&amp;#039;s argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew.  White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship.  It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as &amp;quot;the good kind&amp;quot; of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we have to remember these are like case studies.  Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point.  Celia: I do agree with Rothman&amp;#039;s point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors.  As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis.  David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy&amp;#039;s race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one&amp;#039;s life --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week.  We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren&amp;#039;t enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of.  It&amp;#039;s really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond&amp;#039;s economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city&amp;#039;s main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing &amp;quot;around&amp;quot; the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it&amp;#039;s almost like a tourism pamphlet. &amp;quot;RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD.&amp;quot; -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash&amp;#039;s point is a good one.  I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution.  And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading this chapter I was struck by the use of sexual insults and foul language of women towards women of other races. Such insults and accusations do not fit with the image I had of the proper Virginia lady. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-17T04:12:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book.  I&amp;#039;m not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me.  I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a &amp;quot;oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting.  Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went.  Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude.  Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were.  I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole &amp;quot;Those two people can&amp;#039;t be together and have a family because of the color of their skin.&amp;quot;  So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed.  I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn&amp;#039;t people just leave others alone?  If you don&amp;#039;t like what 2 other people are doing, don&amp;#039;t look at them.  If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don&amp;#039;t pay attention to them.  Let them live their lives and ignore them.  If they want to have a kid, who cares.  The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex &amp;#039;across the color line,&amp;#039; but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free?   Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia.  I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south.  When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships?  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye.  I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War?  What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most.  I guess this was just my naive &amp;quot;The Founding Fathers are Gods&amp;quot; education but I didn&amp;#039;t realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was.  I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side.  Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly.  However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them.  Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson&amp;#039;s needs. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1.  One thing, however, did stick out to me.  I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner.  I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.”  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class.  We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders.  I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender.  Sexism?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting.  It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word.  In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms.  Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson&amp;#039;s relationship with Sally wasn&amp;#039;t considered imporper because he didn&amp;#039;t publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman&amp;#039;s sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people&amp;#039;s sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Andrew, I&amp;#039;ve read a lot about Tom and Sally.  Rothman&amp;#039;s scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation.  Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence.  His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Amanda that the amount of time devoted to this topic is excessive. I also feel, that while Rothman&amp;#039;s argument is convincing, he appears so determined to prove Jefferson and Sally were intimate that he makes many assuming statements and infers a great deal more then is apparent in the written history. I can see that circumstances were ripe for a relationship and yet I do not know if I believe everything that the author suggests about it, particularly as he basis his argument off of the work of Callender, a very disgruntled enemy of Jefferson. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew.  White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship.  It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as &amp;quot;the good kind&amp;quot; of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we have to remember these are like case studies.  Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point.  Celia: I do agree with Rothman&amp;#039;s point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors.  As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis.  David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy&amp;#039;s race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one&amp;#039;s life --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What popped into my head at one point while reading this was something we talked about last week.  We had discussed that freed blacks eventually had to carry papers around with them to prove they weren&amp;#039;t enslaved and when Nancy had to go and testify in court to prove she was born free in VA it was the first thing that I thought of.  It&amp;#039;s really unfortunate that freed blacks were always stepping on eggshells. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond&amp;#039;s economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city&amp;#039;s main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing &amp;quot;around&amp;quot; the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it&amp;#039;s almost like a tourism pamphlet. &amp;quot;RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD.&amp;quot; -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash&amp;#039;s point is a good one.  I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution.  And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-17T04:05:36Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Chapter 2 - David and Nancy */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Overarching Topics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do not know if this is a good topic for the wiki... but I have to admit, I do not like this book.  I&amp;#039;m not sure why though, it just seemed really dry and boring to me.  I guess because I felt like, especially in the first chapter, that it was a &amp;quot;oh look at whose having sex with who and are they cheating in the celebrity world.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say that I disagree with Ashley, I thought the book was very interesting.  Yeah, the first chapter read kind of like a tabloid, but it was interesting to see how far-reaching the interracial relations went.  Look at that crazy genealogy in the interlude.  Then you also get to see how shortsighted and contradictory these people really were.  I find it incredibly fascinating. -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This week is supposed to be interracial sex and all that jazz... however, with my own view points I have problems with the whole &amp;quot;Those two people can&amp;#039;t be together and have a family because of the color of their skin.&amp;quot;  So... articles and monographs that touch of the subject usually make me moody, upset, or annoyed.  I know its the difference in opinions of people then and now, but why couldn&amp;#039;t people just leave others alone?  If you don&amp;#039;t like what 2 other people are doing, don&amp;#039;t look at them.  If people did like Mrs. White Jane Doe having sex with Mr. Black Joe Smith, then don&amp;#039;t pay attention to them.  Let them live their lives and ignore them.  If they want to have a kid, who cares.  The people in the 1800s needed to be honest with themselves, people were already having sex &amp;#039;across the color line,&amp;#039; but no one seemed to care much until blacks were free, honestly, does it matter that the blacks were free?   Oy.... --Ashely Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find it strange that it was not necessarily frowned upon for people to have interracial relationships before the civil war in Virginia.  I feel as if society has always looked down, to some degree, on interracial relationships, particularly in the south.  When did this shift occur, from a don’t ask don’t tell view, to a viewpoint that clearly frowned upon interracial relationships?  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was very surprised. I have grown up in VA and have almost always felt that it was an overarching view that interracial relationships were frowned upon, especially in southern VA. At the same time, I think that in many parts of VA you would be able to get away with an interracial marriage if there was enough else going on that people were mainly only concerned about themselves. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Andrew and Kellye.  I was a bit confused when I was reading this about the fact that it was more okay before the Civil War?  What was the difference or change in attuitudes caused by? - Stephen&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I am just venturing a guess, but perhaps it has to to with power. Having sex with a black female slave gave a white man a sense of power, either over the woman herself or over her loved ones. It may have just been an expected role of a white slave-holder. After the emancipation proclamation, the black people were no longer under direct control of the whites. Sexual relations between a black person and a white person was no longer primarily about power, but about something that was unthinkable... intimacy and love. - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 1 - Tom and Sally ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Thomas Jefferson and James Callender is what interested me the most.  I guess this was just my naive &amp;quot;The Founding Fathers are Gods&amp;quot; education but I didn&amp;#039;t realize how manipulative Thomas Jefferson was.  I found it kind of funny, actually (and I know this probably makes me a horrible person) that as soon as Jefferson won the presidential election he tossed Callender to the side.  Poor guy worked so hard to bash the other party for Jefferson and their relationship ends instantly.  However, I am not surprised that Callender died by falling into a river drunk causing him to drown. -Kelly W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I totally agree with you. I felt much of the same way. It seems to me that a lot of people do what Jefferson did, that is cast someone aside that is no longer of value to them.  Callender was really there just to meet Jefferson&amp;#039;s needs. -- Kellye S&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have read so many accounts and so many interpretations of the Thomas Jefferson / Sally Hemings saga that I could barely make it through chapter 1.  One thing, however, did stick out to me.  I felt as if Rothman was discounting the fact that Jefferson was a racist slave owner.  I felt as if Rothman gave Jefferson too much credit, as if… “yea he owns slaves, but, he was a founding father, so it is OK.”  -Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, I feel this is similar to what we were discussing in class.  We have a tendency to find behavior which as a whole we find wrong, somehow less wrong in considering the founders.  I feel that Rothman continues this trend to an extent regardign Hemings, but not regarding Callender.  Sexism?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the negotiation powers that Sally had while in France were very interesting.  It seemed like slaves in that position really had no choice but to believe their masters would keep their word.  In France, she had very little opportunity and was away from their families and if she went to Virginia she could stay with her family and have some more freedoms.  Was this going to France thing a common occurrence or was this just a Thomas Jefferson/wealthy elite thing? -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As in all eras, there is a proper and improper way to do things. It was not considered improper to have interracial relationships; however, it was if you publically flaunted it. Jefferson&amp;#039;s relationship with Sally wasn&amp;#039;t considered imporper because he didn&amp;#039;t publically acknwledge it, even though many knew about it. However, Callender was considered more dishonorable for publicizng a gentleman&amp;#039;s sexual relationship with his slave. Does anyone think that reactions have changed since then on people&amp;#039;s sexual behavior and the people who expose them? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Andrew, I&amp;#039;ve read a lot about Tom and Sally.  Rothman&amp;#039;s scenarios for what could have happened, the possible reasons for the relations and explanations were interesting, but I felt it was really a lot of extrapolation.  Clearly it was a complex situation, but no concrete answer is ever going to be reached, even with DNA evidence.  His conclusions about sex across the color line again are interesting, but I felt this chapter was a little drawn out.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 2 - David and Nancy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the marriage of Issac and West was not as socially unacceptable because Issac was a Jew.  White Protestants viewed Jews as inferior and therefore could somewhat justify the black/white relationship.  It wasn’t one of “them” who was having sexual relations with a black woman. They would really look for anything to try and not put a blemish on the supreme white society. - Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found it very interesting that somehow David’s faith prevented him from being held to such a high standard of morality. It was almost as though since he was Jewish that he could not be technically held to the same Christian standards, yet he could still be held to society’s standards, which touches upon a major idea of the role of community. We discussed last week the role of community in influencing social interactions between blacks and whites in Stevenson’s work and we see that again this week looking at how the law and how society determined race, social status, and interactions between the two. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was a little puzzling to me too, Kari. It was almost as if the area as a whole viewed the Jewish community as &amp;quot;the good kind&amp;quot; of minority, willing to overlook Christian-Judeo marriages as less of an offense than marriages between blacks and whites. After all, the Constitution excused freedom of religion explicitly. Not so much freedom of race. -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone else agree with what Rothman says about Issac and Nancy- that their success was proof not only of their intelligence, foresight and shrewdness, but also of their luck? Can the successful marriage and life of a freed black woman and Jewish man be the reult of anything but luck? - Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we have to remember these are like case studies.  Rothman uses one couple to make a broad point.  Celia: I do agree with Rothman&amp;#039;s point, but also think luck may have had more to do with it than the other factors.  As he pointed out earlier, every instance of interracial relations could be brought up and judged on a case-by-case basis.  David and Nancy could easily had a different, less fortunate fate.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this chapter on interracial relations was very interesting. I was very impressed and surprised by how they were able to use the law for their benefit even though it was meant to limit them. For instance, Nancy was able to hold more power then the average white women, owning property and having no need for a dowry, as she was considered to be unmarried. The discussion of how to define Nancy&amp;#039;s race was also interesting. It really reflects the implications that being white, black, or mulatto had on one&amp;#039;s life --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Chapter 3 - Brothels and Prostitution ==&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else catch that most of the women being hauled into court for prostitution were generally being charged with anything but that? -Lacey&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lacey, I think this was an issue of what prostitution brought to Richmond&amp;#039;s economy. If you start prosecuting one of the city&amp;#039;s main economic draws, then the tourism, if you will, is going to suffer. By punishing &amp;quot;around&amp;quot; the actual crime, you can bring it down to a point where people may stop complaining for a while, but it will still bring people to the city. You know, it&amp;#039;s almost like a tourism pamphlet. &amp;quot;RICHMOND! COME FOR THE WOMEN, STAY FOR THE SEAFOOD.&amp;quot; -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash&amp;#039;s point is a good one.  I thought of the chapter like Lacey, but I can see how prosecution for other crimes was a means of decreasing (or at least hushing) prostitution.  And, I like the tourism pamphlet line.--Amanda&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-12T04:29:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* It takes a village... */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Slave Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their &amp;#039;masters&amp;#039;) and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off.  Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how &amp;quot;exceptional&amp;quot; Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slave families were certainly different from free families.  Although there are a number of similarities, there were numerous differences.  I found one passage to be extremely telling of the situation--“We were not allowed to call our mammies ‘mother.’”  In some cases, slave families were not even recognized by whites.  It is hard to form a cohesive family unit when you are dominated by a group of people who do not recognize your right to a family.  It is easy to see why the community played such a large role in the slave family. –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading about slave families really bothered me. I first can not even imagine living the life of a slave then having to be separated from the only happiness in your whole life; their families. Very sad... –Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slave family life was definitely depressing to read about.  Most of the families had to live a part because of all the slave trading.  They were never really able to develop a nuclear family.  One thing that really stuck out was when the master died the slaves got divided up. I can&amp;#039;t even imaging having my family sold somewhere else and being able to do nothing about it.  It was really encouraging to read about the slaves who were sold to other plantations being welcomed into families already living on that plantation.  They provided a sense of community and family in an awful situation. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Slave Children ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY.  Only sorta mind you.  The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age.  I know we didn&amp;#039;t get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for &amp;#039;misbehaving&amp;#039; at the age of 6... or even younger. :-(  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s comment really struck me because I knew that children factory labor regulations were bad, but when you see the direct comparison to children slaves it really shows how even after slavery America had much growing to do. --Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see your point.  The young age children were expected to begin work was true of kids in most places, be it on southern farms, northern factories or slave families.  I think it speaks to the fact that life for families was harder in general.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== It takes a village... ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading both sections of Stevenson&amp;#039;s book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child.  I can see both sides.  White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family.  White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children.  In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women.  Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale.  Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization.  Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community.  In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family.  One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated.  The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think both black and white families needed the support of the community in order to raise their children.  In the case of white families communities were not only physical and emotional support, but created the ideals of what a family should look like.  The community helped mold the child into the adult that was acceptable to white society.  They would set standards for children to meet, encourage racial hierarchy etc.  Black slave families had to rely on the community they were living in because it was so common for a slave to be sold.  People had to rely on the community as a type of family for support when their biological families were miles away. -- Kari W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kari in that I think the community was essential to raising children in both black and white families. However, I think that the community played a larger daily role in the upbringing of black children, particularly slave children, whose mothers had to be working for most of the day. The reliance upon other slaves to assist in the raising of slave children appears as a form of communal parenting. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Childbirth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That did seem strange. I guess people didn&amp;#039;t really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Distinctions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners&amp;#039; ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that too about slave families.  Another point M&amp;amp;K made were the naming systems slaves used, which were similar to American systems.  Just like everyone in Burr Powell&amp;#039;s family had either Burr or Powell in their name, Molly got Isaac&amp;#039;s name from her family.  Often times these names were from former owners, which also mixed the African and American culture.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Free Black Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really interested in Stevenson&amp;#039;s portrayal of free black family life. These black families had to scrimp and save to get by in many cases, often sending their children out to work. In addition, they faced discrimination from most of the Loudoun community. It is hard to imagine a former slave having to subject themselves to almost identical circumstances as annual hires in order to support their families. Clearly free black families knew a lot about sacrifice for one&amp;#039;s family. I was also struck by the role gender played in the lives of free blacks and how men and women each had their own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, Stevenson discusses how women, because they kept a lower profile, were apt to go unnoticed by the white community. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-12T04:15:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* It takes a village... */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Slave Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their &amp;#039;masters&amp;#039;) and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off.  Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking at the two accounts by Stevenson and Mintz and Kellogg, one gets a look into how &amp;quot;exceptional&amp;quot; Loudoun County, VA was in Antebellum South. Stevenson offers many numbers and figures on how slave families were seperated, for the most part, between various plantations that their masters owned. Mintz and Kellogg declare that slave families were very rarely seperated. I suppose this goes to show how Loudoun was made up of different people, lots of white upper-class who owned numerous plantations all over the state and many parts of the South. This explains why Stevenson stresses seperation amongst black slave families -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slave families were certainly different from free families.  Although there are a number of similarities, there were numerous differences.  I found one passage to be extremely telling of the situation--“We were not allowed to call our mammies ‘mother.’”  In some cases, slave families were not even recognized by whites.  It is hard to form a cohesive family unit when you are dominated by a group of people who do not recognize your right to a family.  It is easy to see why the community played such a large role in the slave family. –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading about slave families really bothered me. I first can not even imagine living the life of a slave then having to be separated from the only happiness in your whole life; their families. Very sad... –Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slave family life was definitely depressing to read about.  Most of the families had to live a part because of all the slave trading.  They were never really able to develop a nuclear family.  One thing that really stuck out was when the master died the slaves got divided up. I can&amp;#039;t even imaging having my family sold somewhere else and being able to do nothing about it.  It was really encouraging to read about the slaves who were sold to other plantations being welcomed into families already living on that plantation.  They provided a sense of community and family in an awful situation. -- Kari W. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Slave Children ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY.  Only sorta mind you.  The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age.  I know we didn&amp;#039;t get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for &amp;#039;misbehaving&amp;#039; at the age of 6... or even younger. :-(  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley&amp;#039;s comment really struck me because I knew that children factory labor regulations were bad, but when you see the direct comparison to children slaves it really shows how even after slavery America had much growing to do. --Jimmy Conroy&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see your point.  The young age children were expected to begin work was true of kids in most places, be it on southern farms, northern factories or slave families.  I think it speaks to the fact that life for families was harder in general.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== It takes a village... ==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading both sections of Stevenson&amp;#039;s book about white and black families, I wonder which group this statement applies to best: it takes a village to raise a child.  I can see both sides.  White families may have had a mid-wife involved in the family, along with slave nurses, and extended family.  White women seem to have had more time to raise their own children.  In black families and communities, childrearing defaulted to other slaves and older women.  Mothers had little if any time to be mothers, and may have been separated from their kids either by work or sale.  Is it clear cut which group--black or white--raised children with the community? -Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is interesting to see the parallels between slave families and white families during industrialization.  Both sets were facing exploitation of some sort, and both relied on the community.  In the case of slaves, the community functioned as a defacto family.  One could count on the community to raise your child if you were every separated.  The community was also responsible for babysitting and food preparation.  –Andrew B&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think both black and white families needed the support of the community in order to raise their children.  In the case of white families communities were not only physical and emotional support, but created the ideals of what a family should look like.  The community helped mold the child into the adult that was acceptable to white society.  They would set standards for children to meet, encourage racial hierarchy etc.  Black slave families had to rely on the community they were living in because it was so common for a slave to be sold.  People had to rely on the community as a type of family for support when their biological families were miles away. -- Kari W.     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Childbirth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That did seem strange. I guess people didn&amp;#039;t really think things through when it came to making money. -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Distinctions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really interested in the section in Mintz and Kellogg about African American kinship systems and how they made distinctions between themselves and their white owners. The authors state that the slaves did not merely wish to continue their African customs or to deviate completely from their white owners&amp;#039; ways. They combined the two to suit their situation. The thing that jumped out at me was their view on first-cousin marriage. They believed it was incest and this belief was carried over with them from West Africa, while at the same time many Southerners married first-cousins. This goes to show that the slaves put a lot of emphasis on their extended family system. -- Celia&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that too about slave families.  Another point M&amp;amp;K made were the naming systems slaves used, which were similar to American systems.  Just like everyone in Burr Powell&amp;#039;s family had either Burr or Powell in their name, Molly got Isaac&amp;#039;s name from her family.  Often times these names were from former owners, which also mixed the African and American culture.--Amanda&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Free Black Families ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was really interested in Stevenson&amp;#039;s portrayal of free black family life. These black families had to scrimp and save to get by in many cases, often sending their children out to work. In addition, they faced discrimination from most of the Loudoun community. It is hard to imagine a former slave having to subject themselves to almost identical circumstances as annual hires in order to support their families. Clearly free black families knew a lot about sacrifice for one&amp;#039;s family. I was also struck by the role gender played in the lives of free blacks and how men and women each had their own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, Stevenson discusses how women, because they kept a lower profile, were apt to go unnoticed by the white community. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-12T02:46:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Slave Children */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Slave Family ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I always knew it happened, but it was still sad to read about the cases where slaves would marry (with or without permission from their &amp;#039;masters&amp;#039;) and then one of the spouses be sold off, or their children get sold off.  Compared to the whites, slave family was vastly different, especially the most households being headed by a female member. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson spends quite some time discussing the matrifocal family. I found it particularly interesting the link between matrifocal structured families and Virginia law as well as a reference to family structures back in Africa. While I can see how the law dictating the status of a child via the mother would create a matrifocally structured family, I struggle to understand how slaves might have preferred this family structure (p.223). While it may have been familiar it was certainly not ideal and I think it is a stretch to make such a claim that since matrifocally structured families were popular in West Africa that families might even prefer this set up in Virginia. Granted, Stevenson has not painted the picture of stability for those families that were able or willing to have nuclear families, but matrifocal families placed such a burden of protection and sole caretaker on the woman, that it seems far from a preference for matrifocal families, but more likely a necessity of the situation. – Mary Beth &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Slave Children ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In some ways, the slave children can be compared to the children of the slums in the NY.  Only sorta mind you.  The comparison is that they both had to start working from a really early age.  I know we didn&amp;#039;t get an age for the kids in NY, but the slave children were working at the age of 6... which means some of them probably got beat for &amp;#039;misbehaving&amp;#039; at the age of 6... or even younger. :-(  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Childbirth ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reading the chapter on slave marriage and families, I was struck by the practice of slave masters encouraging pregnancy in their female slaves for their own financial benefit. This seems to be a grave contradiction with the statistics that Stevenson provides showing that over half of slave babies died before the age of 1. It seems very odd that a master would provide incentives for female slaves to reproduce and yet provide them with such poor living situations and conditions that only half of their babies survived to actually be an asset to them. This really illustrates the lack of value they put on the life of slaves as human beings. --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-09T21:10:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Preface */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having read the first part of Stevenson&amp;#039;s work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was &amp;quot;a practical research site for this kind of study&amp;quot;? She states that the area is both &amp;quot;exceptional and typical&amp;quot; of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? (xi) Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Henrietta ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember where I had read Henrietta&amp;#039;s story before Chapter 4&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Parenting&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is.  I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== NewlyWeds ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn&amp;#039;t changed all that much today either.  When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can&amp;#039;t always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily.  Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I&amp;#039;m getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married.  For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family&amp;#039;s dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage.  The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today&amp;#039;s society&amp;#039;s marriage celebrations (ex. wife&amp;#039;s family pays for the wedding celebration).  I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards &amp;quot;unbecoming behavior.&amp;quot; (page 65) --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson&amp;#039;s reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; than the &amp;#039;formal debuts&amp;#039; of the upper crust.  Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other&amp;#039;s class resume. --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Divorce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck  by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a mensa et thora&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Health and Illness ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples &amp;quot;found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship&amp;quot; (107). --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday</id>
		<title>426--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Tuesday</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=426--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Tuesday"/>
				<updated>2009-02-09T21:08:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sgard9lv: /* Henrietta */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Please add comments under a current group or create a new group. Thanks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Preface ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Having read the first part of Stevenson&amp;#039;s work, do you agree with her statement in the preface that Loudoun County was &amp;quot;a practical research site for this kind of study&amp;quot;? She states that the area is both &amp;quot;exceptional and typical&amp;quot; of the Upper South, do you agree with her, based on your reading thus far? Do you think the prevalence of prominent families in Loudoun impacts her interpretations of southern life or is it a fair representation of most communities? --Sarah Gardner &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Henrietta ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember where I had read Henrietta&amp;#039;s story before Chapter 4&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Parenting&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but just like the first time I cringed at the story because of how horrifying it really is.  I know parents taught their young to think of themselves as the superior race at that was the point of the example was to show some of the ways parents did this... however, I also cringe and feel a little sad for poor Henrietta. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== NewlyWeds ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found one part kind of interesting in that it hasn&amp;#039;t changed all that much today either.  When two people get married, well, two younger people, they can&amp;#039;t always afford a separate residence from parents all that easily.  Its seen more today I guess, where people can afford something, but not all the time, like family helps them get into a new place, or the parents wont agree to the marriage until there is an apartment or house of some sort that one of them has... What I&amp;#039;m getting at, is like in the 19th century, not all couples have a place to move in to right away without leaning on someone or something to help them out. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think a distinction can be made between chapters two and three about newlyweds and that is based on their roles before and after they are married.  For instance, in the second chapter, the male held the pressures of being financially stable and maintaining an occupation that would hold the newlyweds family. The worries of the female were more based on her family&amp;#039;s dowry and how it would support the newlyweds after marriage.  The third chapter reflects the matrimony between the two and reflects more of today&amp;#039;s society&amp;#039;s marriage celebrations (ex. wife&amp;#039;s family pays for the wedding celebration).  I found it interesting how Quakers culture had a way of toning down the actual ceremony to a formal dinner for fear that the celebration would stray towards &amp;quot;unbecoming behavior.&amp;quot; (page 65) --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Courtship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it pretty clear through Stevenson&amp;#039;s reading that the informal meeting between men and women of the lower classes was much more &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; than the &amp;#039;formal debuts&amp;#039; of the upper crust.  Instead of the ballroom environment where women tried to impress the men of nobility status, the informal meeting between men and women after church, at Sunday socials and walks in the park characterize a much more liberating experience. Therefore the question that popped into my head was whether the meeting between men and women in the Southern lower classes between 1820-1840 took on much more meaningful life-long relationships than the courtship based on each other&amp;#039;s class resume. --Joe Cirenza&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Divorce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the chapter on divorce in the South was very interesting and different then I would have expected. I was struck  by the concept that there were legally different levels of divorce, such as an absolute divorce versus &amp;#039;&amp;#039;a mensa et thora&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, the divorce which ended marital relations but did not allow remarriage. The role money played in the divorce proceedings also surprised me as did the large amount of community involvement and input throughout the process. It was sad to me that some individuals who wanted to make their marriages work felt obliged to get a divorce because of community expectations and judgment. --Sarah Gardner&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Health and Illness ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Stevenson repeatedly mentions the role that health and illness played in the lives of Southerners, particularly families. While many of our readings have touched on infant and early childhood illness and disease, I felt that this work emphasized the presence of illness and disease throughout the lives of individuals. Stevenson portrayed most individuals as constantly concerned about their health and cleanliness, especially that of their children of all ages. For instance, parents would write to their children telling them not to study too hard if it would impair their health. Was anyone else struck by how much ones health governed the actions of a person? I also found it interesting that it was in discussing the health of their children that couples &amp;quot;found enormous common ground to build a companionable relationship&amp;quot; (107). --Sarah Gardner&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Sgard9lv</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />