Difference between revisions of "328 2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
Amankarios (Talk | contribs) (→Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880”) |
|||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
I think it was interesting how this chapter compared men and women's struggles and strifes during the Civil War. The fact that women believed their suffering to be equal to, or surpassing that of men's suffering is something I do not quite agree with. I think that women's suffering was more emotional, while men's suffering was physical. I understand the thought process, but I believe that the physical suffering of men definitely surpasses that of women. The men had to deal with the women pressuring them to fight in the first place, and then the actual fighting was just the icing on the cake for the men. I do respect the suffering wome nendured though. I can't imagine how these women went on, but I think it was interesting how the book said that women who had to deal with loss should "seek out benevolent work." (P. 143). --- Alex Mankarios | I think it was interesting how this chapter compared men and women's struggles and strifes during the Civil War. The fact that women believed their suffering to be equal to, or surpassing that of men's suffering is something I do not quite agree with. I think that women's suffering was more emotional, while men's suffering was physical. I understand the thought process, but I believe that the physical suffering of men definitely surpasses that of women. The men had to deal with the women pressuring them to fight in the first place, and then the actual fighting was just the icing on the cake for the men. I do respect the suffering wome nendured though. I can't imagine how these women went on, but I think it was interesting how the book said that women who had to deal with loss should "seek out benevolent work." (P. 143). --- Alex Mankarios | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found the comments posted here on the wiki far more interesting than the reading itself and it demonstrates to me some of the issues brought up by the entire concept of “women’s history” as we discussed last week. I remember reading a feminist historian from my 299 class that objected to what seems to be (in the case of Fahs as well as Brown, certainly not to the same extent) that feminist historians tend to more or less insert women into the historical narrative—basically to say “we were there too” rather than analyze the language that the historical discourse is carried out in. Even in a language that does not use feminine and masculine articles, English is replete with words/phrases that carry connotations of femininity and masculinity, usually denoted by passivity/action. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My own understanding of the Civil War has been that women’s roles both on and off the battlefield are far from forgotten. As much as I would like to try and stay neutral, I will take a very strong stance against Fah’s assertion (and some classmates as well) that the male experience during the war was somehow trivial—that “men simply died on the battlefield.” As a veteran and having seen it, there is absolutely nothing simple or easy about dying or watching death happen. I am not trivializing the pain and suffering women felt not only during the Civil War but throughout all conflicts, but to assert that men or women had it easier than the other is a statement that cannot be justified. Loss is internalized by individuals and to create such a dichotomy is only a perpetuation of a stereotype that can only hurt the cause of historians seeking objectivity. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response to the evolution of an emphasis on the “reality” of the war in literature is, again, a trivialization of the experience of war as a whole—is the depiction of the battlefield more romantic or less realistic than the depiction of women at home, quietly suffering, enduring, remaining strong in the face of loss, etc. as Fahs illustrates? And was the Civil War not a “man’s war?” Is war not mostly a male venture in its actual execution? And Fahs’ point that women personalize the nation…linking private and public realms is nothing really new, at least I think. Nations throughout history, America included, have usually been personified as the motherland, in feminine terms—the country “needs” you to serve in the military, “needs protection,” etc—all of which seems to indicate, for better or worse, a feminine quality about the nation that requires male defense. My thoughts are somewhat scattered, but returning to the rise in “realist” literature concerning the Civil War in the late nineteenth century and the depiction of the war as a “man’s war” seems to coincide with the rise of aggressive imperialist tendencies in Americans that would culminate in the Spanish American War and forays into overseas colonies. Perhaps what we are seeing here are astute publishers jumping on that bandwagon of a nation just coming into its own as an international power? How better to celebrate America’s entry into the world stage than to relive/rewrite stories of bravery and heroism? -schang | ||
| + | |||
== Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” == | == Elsa Barkley Brown, “To Catch the Vision of Freedom: Reconstructing Southern Black Women’s Political History, 1865-1880” == | ||
