Responses to Individual Papers: Brendan + Tom

Here are the two responses I made for Brendan and Tom's papers: I the information or e-mailed both at the time, but hadn't posted them yet.

Hey Tom,

Your paper gets to the point quickly, but maybe even a little faster than I was prepared for. I think your first paragraph could easily be split and padded out to create two paragraphs, one describing the time, the place, and the basics of the issue, the next addressing the quotes you have used already. Your second paragraph now presents the numbers before your thesis, and I think it might help to reposition both these numbers and the quotes: draw the reader in with a little more description, and then show off the numbers that prove your point.

In contrast, I think the majority of the background section of your paper could benefit from the opposite: tell less, and show more. I found myself wanting to see more numbers or quotes, since the first two pages had presented so many; for example, on page 3, what were the religions or values that affected the demographics in your research? Similarly on page 5, I was interested in knowing more about the networks and grassroots movements that made a difference: what networks were they, and how did they make a difference? I know this part is background, but I think you could tighten the paper up with more specific references.

The paragraph transition between pages 6 and 7 could also use work. This is an important transition, and I think that stressing its pivotal role is important, but I think you don't have to explain that it was pivotal so much as illustrate why. Again, I think this part of the paper would benefit from an example of what the changes were, rather than quotes regarding the existence of change alone.

The conclusion of the section that ends on Page 7 was particularly strong, but again, I felt like I wanted to know more specifics—what's an example of the call-back to 19^th century Democratic values? The transition to the following section could also be smoother.

The section on Proposition 14 has some of the best writing in the paper, it is clear and flows well. However, I felt like it was very disjointed from the majority of the preceding paper; the focus shifted too suddenly from the background of the rise of conservatism to the issues surrounding Proposition 14. I think it would be effective to tie back to your main point more often in the first half of the paper, to remind the reader what the background is being used to illustrate by concluding some of the paragraphs with the implications that come into play in 1963 and 4. The examples that you use throughout the Prop 14 section are far stronger than earlier in the paper, and I felt like you hit your stride here, showing history rather than telling it.

Your section on the language of the Proposition, the 'Yes' and 'No' vote, is an interesting point, and I think you could write it more clearly: I certainly remember the confusion surrounding the yes/no language of Prop 8 and the negative or positive implications, separate from the outcome, that seemed to go with one vote or another. I think if you cleaned up this section by tightening your sentences, it would go a long way to punching home your point here. Again, your quotes continue to be more impressive to me than earlier in your paper.

Overall, I think the main focus of your paper is well presented and you do a good job interesting me in the subject—something I think is important, since it's completely out of my fields and if you've engaged me, that's good. However, I think that the most engaging parts of the paper are definitely in the latter half, and that the beginning and background need to be reworked, not necessarily to be more brief, but to show--more than tell--what it is you have to say.

Brendan: Searching for Equality

Intro

maybe a bit less 'good and evil' or frame as your point of view.

Bring Mexican-Americans more rapidly into the framework of the essay

I wouldn't quote yet in the introduction: allow the essay to be your own at first, give opinions and points you will present later, rather than others' views.

Para 1

"United States'" add apostrophe

Change "had been" to "was secured"

Para 2

This feels more like the intro—maybe combine concepts?

"groups'" add apostrophe

change "have" to "had"

eliminate "here" and rephrase it so that the view is not restricted to here in the US.

Chinese immigrants arrived 1849—check facts, also cite immigration information origin.

Add 'laws" to "Jim Crow"

Para 3

All good, well-framed. I would have placed this earlier in the paper.

Rephrase last sentence maybe—conclusions don't demonstrate, I think, but you could foreshadow what you conclude.

Para 4

First sentence is awkward. Rephrase: "Oral histories make up a large part of the primary material on which I relied." Possibly something else, rework sentence structure for paragraph in general.

Get rid of active tense: "ing" doesn't sound strong. Try breaking the paragraph apart and in order to take the sentences one at a time. For examples, "They events they recalled" sounds better then "the events they are recalling." This paper should be largely in the past tense.

"Great" rather than "large number of years."

Para 5

Eliminate "previously"

How were the immigrants exploited? Cite example as well as concept.

I haven't seen "Anglo" used this way before, since it is usually associated with England specifically. Maybe "White" would be better in this case? I suppose Caucasian might have overtones that are incorrect, but if you see "Anglo" in the works you are reading, keep it.

Para 6:

Good statistics: I like this paragraph.

Part 2: Beginning of World War II

I like that you divided this section. Maybe call the first section "Background"? In general, section 1 needs a lot of tightened sentence and paragraph structure, but has good material. Greater use of decisive prose, eliminating active tense ("are —ing" is a form you have used quite often, which should just be "—ed" I think), and words like "actually" and "more" before other qualifiers will help a lot.

In the beginning of part 2, you return to broad statements regarding the war: I think these should be eliminated as well, and you should feel free to assume the audience has a general knowledge of the second World War, with maybe a single sentence queue, such as "The United States' entrance into the second World War galvanized the American public. As troops departed for Europe and the Pacific Theater, President Roosevelt took steps to ensure a united homefront that could endure this outpour of workers: on June 25^th, 1941, he issued an executive order outlawing government contractors from using discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of race, color, or national origin." These are all things you have said, but this would eliminate the first paragraph in Part 2, which I don't think you need, and quickly refocus this section on the Mexican American subject of your paper. I had no idea about "El Congresso" your information is really interesting.

response to sylvie's paper

Your draft is really showing how hard you've worked to bring together all of your evidence, and it is really shaping up to make a great argument. Your writing is clear and precise, and you choose words that fit perfectly to convey the most meaning without being wordy. You have chosen great primary sources, and your explanations and uses of these sources make your paper very credible and interesting. I really enjoyed your exploration of what went awry with your original concept, and think it added strength to your paper – the fact that you were willing to come to terms with a set of conclusions that you didn't originally see coming says a lot about how deeply and seriously you read your sources. In response to one of your questions at the end, I think that you appropriately tie together conservatism as tied to Catholicism, because you do discuss the main points that tie them together quite well, and you repeatedly bring up various other connections (such as, near the end, indicating how Buckley's crude suggestion that Indian people look up birth control in the encyclopedia as an example of his support of individualism).

While I understand what your first paragraph is trying to communicate, and though I think the facts contained in it are valid and appropriate for an introduction, I am wondering if there is anyway you could possibly paraphrase or introduce your own thoughts instead of quoting so extensively. Having a quote in the very first sentence, and having another quote take up the bulk of the paragraph, doesn't feel quite right – I would really like to start the paper off with more of YOUR words. On the other hand, if you feel the quote says it perfectly and you don't want to change it, I think it might possibly be better to actually start the paragraph with the quote.

Your first several pages provide a lot of really great specifics and anecdotal evidence, first about Catholic and Irish Catholic immigrants, and then about William F. Buckley's life. Many of your sentences in these pages add crucial background and depth to later parts of your paper. I understand why you started off with the Irish Catholic intro and then changed courses with “This brand of American Catholicism, however, was far from William F. Buckley, Jr.'s world”, but at the same time I think that a reader might feel somewhat misled – after several paragraphs of talking about 19^th century discrimination against Irish Catholics, you suddenly switch gears. The background info is great and is certainly crucial to setting up your main arguments – how Buckley's brand of Catholicism and his lifestyle were totally different – but I think it might help readers understand your structure if you perhaps start off with at least mentioning Buckley and what you intend to say about him, and then somehow transition into the “normal” American Catholic experience, before turning back to the explanation of Buckley's life. I encountered a similar issue in my draft – I spent a lot of time filling the reader in on important and interesting background information, but realized later that my real thesis only came up a few pages in. I totally get why you did it this way, but I realized in my own work that while it often works as a writer, readers might be confused, so you may want to consider that.

This might possibly be a misunderstanding on my part, but in the second paragraph you conclude with these two sentences:

Catholic churches were often almost uniformly rich, poor, or middle-class. What parish

one belonged did not often belie one's race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

I feel like there might be a bit of a contradiction there, possibly caused by a missing/misplaced negative – just wanted to check. If this is indeed what you intended to say, I think it needs to be cleared up, because I was pretty confused.

And this is sort of just a personal preference: I would caution against using “would've.” When speaking out loud, it makes a lot of sense, but in writing it looks informal. It's a small thing, but it can really bring a sentence down.

I really enjoyed reading your paper and think you have a really successful and impressive first draft. Can't wait to read the final draft!

Comments on drafts

Tom,

Although you say that your paper is very rough, I think you have a very strong draft here, even if it isn't quite complete. What you have is well-written and provides a lot of great evidence and attention to detail. I really liked the way you crafted each of your sentences to explain your argument, and how you used well-chosen details such as population statistics and quotes from ads to back up your points. I think the last two paragraphs are really going somewhere, and I think you could expand your explanation of how these two campaigns really spell out what was going on in terms of the conservative movement. Do you have any examples of ads or articles in Orange County papers? Though you haven't yet worked out the structure of your paper perfectly, I think you are on your way to figuring it out, and I think your current general structure - explaining your argument more generally, then talking about the elections, and then talking about the process of the housing act and prop 14 - will work really well to reach your conclusion.


Andrea,

I think your paper is going really well - you have a great grasp on your topic and you are using your sources well. I really enjoyed how clearly you set out your argument and explained it such that it was very fascinating, and I was interested in what you were saying from beginning to end. I think that your first few pages really lay out what you're going to talk about, but I also think, in some cases, you were repeating yourself a lot - this happened to me a lot too in my first draft, so I understand how it happens. You seem to really want to make sure the reader understands your points, which is great, but I also think if you read closely, there are a few sentences/paragraphs where you aren't really saying anything new (for instance, you list the "Components of a black marriage" twice, which isn't particularly useful), when you could be using that space to include more information about your primary sources or anecdotes, which I think are some of the strongest aspects of your paper. One thing that made me very curious was the statistic you include about the declining ratio of African American males to females throughout the last century - I've heard about this before, but I don't know the cause. While I understand that it may be outside the scope of your paper, I'm wondering why there are fewer African American males (is it attributed to earlier death rate? murder? drug use?), and how this CAUSE might be contributing to some of the problems in fulfilling the idealized black marriage. You also question in your paper "(I may or may not insert more cultural theories as to why this happened… if you guys think it’s necessary to complete the picture…)" and I think that, yes, that would be really important for the full picture. Also, I feel like you repeatedly point out how comedians in particular blame black women for failure in marriages, and I'm wondering what the cause of that is. Richard Pryor in particular seems like a total misogynist and I'm wondering what misogyny or general belittlement of black women - or, from these comedians' perspectives, the moral/social failures of black women - have to do with the decline of black marriage. I'm really looking forward to seeing your final draft and conclusion, I think your draft is really great!

Chris,

Your new sources have taken you in a very interesting direction. I think the comparisons you draw between domestic servants and workers in Chinatowns are really useful and informative, and the personal records you've dug up (such as Jane's will, Ariel Lathrop's letter, and Ah Wing's letter) are really fascinating and give your argument a lot of credibility. One question I have was whether or not you planned to explore if and how the Chinese Exclusion Act changed the way Chinese and Americans interacted - clearly there was racial prejudice there, but you're arguing that at least among wealthy families, it wasn't the dominant conception of the relationship. What about middle and lower class families? I understand this may be outside the scope of your paper, but you do say that Jane Stanford's experience may not have been the norm, so I think perhaps an explanation of what the norm was might be helpful. I think your intro/thesis is well on its way to being a very strong introduction to your argument, but I think it could also be a bit smoother in terms of word usage and transitions. The draft looks great all around, you have a lot of substantial evidence that makes your argument strong!

Draft Comments

Hi everyone-

Sorry it was tough getting my draft! I sent it out on Tuesday but I guess only Professor Hobbs and Brendan got it? I apologize for that.

These drafts, like last week's, were great to read!

Andrea- I love the use of Chestnutt's, Harper's and Hopkins's fiction as evidence for your claims on this transition-period black marriage. Like Jenni, you made the fiction really come alive as evidence here and I think it just worked perfectly, especially in comparison with the real-life stories. If you want to include the film though, I agree that it might be a bit tight for space. What about having Chestuntt + Haper + the film, rather than three pieces of fiction? They all seem too great to cut for me, but it would be a nice parallel to have two films covered. I think you could go either way.

The Du Bois-Cullen marriage was fascinating. It's a great example of marriages that were set up because they "ought to be" and for appearances. I would mention perhaps, even in just a sentence, that strangeness and importance of the that Cullen's sexuality was ignored and he married her anyway. Maybe this could've been an "uplifting" marriage as Du Bois had dreamed of, but certain complications (re: his sexuality, them being a terrible match as partners) got in the way.

It was great that you included the audience reaction to Pryor's performances! The comedy routines you include are both poignant, and entertaining, so I think including a couple more (short) ones like these would be great. The "surprise" value of your paper that you turn it back around and say that Well...these guys joked about it cause it was funny, but they too really just wanted stability and love, and no kidding.

Your paper is really well written and very compelling! I'm looking forward to getting to read the final one.

Tom:

Your paper is really interesting-- and has been particularly fascinating to read in conjunction with my own research on new conservatism. Here are just a few comments:

-I would mention that one of the reason Nixon won so resoundingly in CA in 1960 was that he was from CA.. That is definitely one part of the explanation of why SC and OC counties voted the same in 1960...1964 of course is a different story, and is your story, but I still think that detail is important.

-You certainly do not have to be completely chronological, but sometimes it's a bit confusing when you go from LBJ beating Goldwater, back to talking about when Goldwater won the primary in CA. When you go back and forth between time periods, just be really clear with your reader as to what's up.

-I think you did a really great job explaining why it was so important that Goldwater beat out Rockefeller... and I think you did a much better job than I did in my paper laying out a perfectly concise and clear description of what the New Right was all about!!

I think should tie this: "conservatives found a platform that resonated with modern middle-class Americans" back to an argument about why this was particularly compelling for Orange County residents.

-You have a ton of really great analysis of Prop 14 in the last part of your paper, and it seems like your argument is going to come together really nicely!

Chris-

I was a tiny bit confused by this early sentence: "immigrants faced hoops so hostile"

-You have lots of fascinating anecdotes that bring a lot of life to the paper ("Ah Charley" and facts like this). Your descriptions of the Stanfords and their life is likewise great!

-Watch out for the overly flourish-y verbal descriptions in the first paragraph a bit..."quashed the tide of Chinese".."surged into the Bay Area of California"..etc.

-Your paper has a wonderful narrative quality to it: you can really tell a story, and you have organized this beautifully. Your careful research has absolutely paid off---it is easy to tell that you put a lot of time into finding all this information. Paragraph after paragraph... so much rich detail (and a great title to boot...no pun intended)c

Draft Comments

Hi, everybody! Here are my comments on reading your drafts. I'll bring my full comments to Andrea in class tomorrow.

Tom--I think you've laid an extremely strong foundation! You do a great job clearly explaining both the political situation in the nation and between Santa Clara and Orange counties. I know you haven't got the whole paper laid out yet, so much of what I'm going to say is probably already what you're planning to do, so I apologize if this is redundant. Your thorough background is great and well-written. It does, however, border on summary in some places, and because it takes on a summary kind of tone, that tends to obscure what parts of this are your own interpretations and arguments. You start to get more into what seems to be your own arguments at the end of the draft, when you discuss the language of the Yes and No on Proposition 14 campaigns, and so I think that's a great sign for the rest of your paper. And it seems a lot like the questions that crop up for me in the first 13 pages will be addressed in the rest of your paper--for instance, what exactly the difference in language in the campaigns indicates in terms of the types of conservatism/liberalism that were becoming prevalent in each county, or how much race played into California politics as a polarizing issue, and how this shift is different from the national shift in the Republican party.

Chris--This has really come a long way, especially in terms of your sources! You've definitely been able to overcome your original difficulty in getting your hands on sources. I have a few questions about how you are planning to tie the threads in your paper together. You talk about how the ways and situation of the Chinese immigrants to California in many ways alienated them from white people, which in turn produced prejudice. But in what ways do the attitudes of white people (towards minorities in general and towards the lower/servant class) play into this as well? You talk about the white tendency to "conflate race with class" when it came to the Chinese. Was this how white people (obviously not all...) viewed other minorities? It seems that race determines class, but for some reason not for white people, who can be both the lower working class (who dislike the Chinese because they are taking their jobs and wages) and the upper class (who look down on the Chinese but employ them as servants). Finally, sometimes your evidence does not quite seem to be helping your point--I'm thinking specifically of the incident with the fire and Jane Stanford's brother, which undermines the point you make beforehand about the Stanfords being unusually open-minded about the Chinese.

Sylvie--I really like the dimensions you've added here. The context of Catholicism in American helps so much. I particularly like the distinction you make between the "social conservatism" among Irish Catholic workers and immigrants and the "political conservatism" among people like Buckley. You also write extremely clearly and vividly. I am not sure yet--we'll probably find out tomorrow in class!--whether you're planning to add something introductory at the beginning, but some kind of introduction might help--maybe a little glimpse of "who is William F Buckley, and what is New American Conservatism," at the beginning might help orient your reader as to what is to come as they're reading your excellent background information. You also do a great job of showing the apparent contradictions or oddities in Buckley: his election campaign, for instance, or his support of contraception for people who don't have a problem with it, immediately followed by his denial that people in India, for instance, need more information on contraception. In response to your final questions, I do think some greater connection between Catholicism and conservatism could be beneficial: how, for instance, did conservatism operate without Catholicism (you show how Catholicism operated without conservatism, at least in Buckley's eyes)?

Essay Thoughts

Brandon:
I really enjoyed your introduction and I felt you did a good job of introducing your topic smoothly. I found the discussion of verbal accounts important to acknowledge (but maybe transition a little more into it because it feels a little forced).
Most importantly though, you are doing a good job of telling a story. Your topic lends itself nicely to a narrative of the progression of Mexican-Americans from before the War to after the War. While the post-War part clearly needs development, you are teed up to make your point and draw your conclusions. One thing to think about that I see potentially becoming an issue is: Is Mexican-Americans' motivations for fighting still the central theme of your paper? How do you see their motivations figuring into your argument regarding the quest for first-class citizenship?

Another thought: Be careful with how often you use "however"

Alice:
Your paper is incredibly well written. Your transition from introduction to the history of the Pinkerton's is practically seamless and you use your sources incredibly well. I can tell that writing the rough draft was helpful for you in that it showed you what dates/names you still need to look up but your research has been thorough. I think your argument is very well laid out and you tell your narrative very well. My comments are primarily stylistic rather than substantive. Be careful not to use the long dash too much because it's a great tool for drawing attention to large points, but becomes less powerful with each use. You love using commas and often times I believe you are a little liberal in your usage. Some of your sentences would be more powerful without the breaks of the commas.
I would love to get a chance to read your conclusion in order to make some more substantive comments on your overarching conclusions given your full narrative, but at this point I think you have a phenomenal start and just need to draw conclusions from what you've set forth.

Thanks Everyone!
Tom

Responses to First Drafts

Jenni-
The style of your paper is engaging- it’s very well written and reads like a story.

I know you were worried about it, but I actually am impressed with your introduction – it just needs a little refining. You repeat yourself a little in the first few sentences, using the words “evidence” and “tension” too often. Other than that – you simply need to flesh it out. I would recommend providing a minor but concrete example of what you’re discussing. It would help us get ready for the rest of the paper.

You go into a lot of depth about how the term “flapper” came to be, but I’m more interested in why flappers were assigned the title, “modern women.” Why did flappers become modern women (as opposed to another counterculture group of that time) and who decided that? Was it the media or themselves? Just something to consider.

I LOVE the scene of Betty slapping Waltham in the car in “IT” – it’s a great example for your argument, highlighting the fine line between modesty and modernity. You might also consider how this film (and this scene) would be received by an audience. Would they, like Waltham, be expecting more than a kiss? What does that say about the audience?

Currently, the section on sanitary products is slightly bare in terms of concrete examples, whereas the film section is rich in them. Is there any way you could include photocopies or full-context excepts of the ads?

Another suggestion is to keep track of citing your sources as you go – it could save you hours in the end, and help you keep your thoughts organized!



Alice -
(more to come on yours, but so far I've enjoyed it!)
Right off the bat, I need the basic information about the Pinkertons (which is currently around page 4). Other than that it was a national detective agency and that their name sounds really cool, I know next to nothing about them. If you break down the simple facts about who they were, how they were founded, where they operated, their influence, etc in the first few paragraphs, it will make it easier for me to understand your argument and subsequent analysis.

I loved the section about Pinkerton involvement in returning private property – it was interesting how you tied it to traditional American values of protecting their own property. I can’t wait to see the expansion!

Great integration of examples like the train robber that eventually turned over the money because Pinkertons had infiltrated every aspect of his life and his wife’s.

A question I would like to see clarified is why are the Pinkertons depicted as having more “legitimacy” (or in the case of the Samuels farmhouse – LESS respect) than any of the other vigilante groups they competed with, especially if in the end they were equally as violent? What made them get attention that other groups did not? Were those other groups always violent whereas Pinkertons BECAME violent?