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?

Comments on first drafts

I am the official commenter for Alice's Pinkertonian paper, which I will bring to class.

I also read Jenni's paper and Brendn's, and so here are some brief comments on both:

Brendan-
you've got a lot of really good writing here, and clearly have done a ton of research. Your goal of writing a paper describing the inequities for Latino Americans and their "quest for first-class citizenship" over the course of American history is a huge undertaking. I would be a bit wary of setting up your paper to do this much. I would focus on concentrating your argument on how WWII was a turning point in the Latin American civil rights movement, rather than seeking to explain this entire process (I don't think you are actually going to do this, but your fourth paragraph makes it seem as such). Your paper will be plenty strong and very interesting if you focus on WWII alone; giving background info will be great to help explain this time period, but I would restructure your thesis paragraph so the reader understands your intent.
Your writing is really strong, and very easy to follow. It was really interesting to read your commentary on the beginnings of the war. Your sources are diverse, and I like that you lay them out in the beginning so we know what we're going to be reading about. Plus it's just interesting to know where you are getting these amazing oral histories from.
I think you have the structure of your paper fairly well figured out (I'm basing this on the outline portions you've included as well as what you've written). Transitions will need to be inserted, but it seems like that is probably one of your next steps.
All in all, this was fascinating to read! I can't wait to see the final draft.

Jenni-
All your primary resource is really shining through here, and even though you were never able to find those elusive flapper diaries, I think "IT", "The Flapper", and "Bernice Bobs Her Hair" are GREAT sources.
My favorite part was your in-depth analysis of these movies, and the story. I've never seen "IT" or "The Flapper" and I thought you did a fabulous job describing them. They are both silent movies, right? You did such a good job describing what happened, I cant even tell ( I mean this as a big compliment: you really gave a lot of voice to these movies with no words). You clearly spent a good deal of time examining these sources! Same goes with Bernice Bobs Her Hair...This is really great stuff, and very compelling.
I think that the biggest thing I would suggest working on would be branching the stories of Kotex, etc with the movies and story you analyze. You do a really nice job tying these all together at the end, and I think your intro can include a bit more about the movies etc in the beginning so we know what we're going to read about (you say you're going to discuss them on page 3, but I would consider tying them in in the beginning a bit more).
Your paper has left me with a lot of questions---what about changing attitudes regarding childrearing? How did class status play into this? Money?---which is a GOOD thing! You obviously can't cover the history of the modern women all in this paper, and you do a great job leaving us curious, but not unsatisfied. Great Job!

Comments on Alice's and Brendan's drafts

Hi guys,

It was great to read your drafts! I'm looking forward to workshopping them today in class.

Alice - It was so great to see how all of your work came together after reading your sources - you did a great job including so many fascinating primary sources that really helped you to tell your story. The details you included about the violence and motivations of the Pinkertons, Jameses, and strikers gave a lot of depth to the paper, and I actually really thought you wrote very eloquently about some not so eloquent topics, i.e. very graphic violence. One of my questions is, what exactly is the structure that you have envisioned for your paper? I know you haven't quite finished (don't worry, I haven't either!) but as it is, I see a lot of possible structures - which is a good thing! The paper can go in a lot of ways and leaves a lot of questions which I think is a huge goal of a paper like this. I think focusing on the violence is one of your key points, but so is discussing the tension between the Pinkertons "extra-legal" policing and the actual public police. While I think both of these are crucial to your paper as well as very interesting, I'm curious as to whether one or the other could take a lead role, to make the structure of the paper more clear. Just as a side note, one thing that I would really appreciate as a reader is a more thorough description of the Homestead strike - what was it about, what precipitated it, the details - just because I really don't have any knowledge of it, and it made that portion of the paper a little confusing. I really enjoyed reading this draft and I think you did an amazing job of incorporating a lot of informative primary sources that really added to your argument!

Brendan - I think you have a really great start to your paper. The introduction and parts you have written are great signposts for how you intend to tell the story of these men and women and what you want to say about their experiences, and you clearly designate several issues and questions you plan to delve into, which was great. I think your incorporation of quotes and statistics is extremely effective and add a lot to the narrative structure of the paper, and there were so many interesting things I'd never heard of. You have a great voice in this paper, and everything you say clearly adds to your argument while still bringing up additional questions, Some questions that I would like to have addressed are, how exactly did the experience of going to war or being in the military change their experiences once they returned home? I'm also curious to hear more about the Zoot Suit Riots and what they said about relationship between the military and Latinos. In terms of writing, I found your introduction very helpful and informative, but I also think that as a reader I would appreciate more clarity in your explanation of why the interviews are most likely accurate. I'm looking forward to reading your final draft!

Comments on Papers

Jenni: It's really exciting to see you pulling all of this together! A couple of thoughts/comments/questions. First of all, I really like the idea of "sexual purity" that you pull in when you're talking about the films--because sexual purity is a very different idea than modesty, although they all kind of fall under the same umbrella. So I'm just curious about whether you can flesh that idea out more: was it more the sexual liberty that these flappers exhibited that defined them, or was it their defiance of traditional modesty? What about in the case of the women in the ads you discuss? Secondly, what is the point that all of these films are trying to make in portraying flappers (or women who are really trying hard to be flappers) as sexually promiscuous? Are these cautionary tales? Finally, I like the chronological aspect that you play up in the section where you talk about film--I think you can strengthen it by playing up what was responsible for this change in what was acceptable to show on camera beyond the fact that films before it had pushed the envelope. Also, good use of section headers--I think that really helps to direct your paper.

Brendan: I'm really interested in how you compare "institutionalized segregation" to the more nebulous discrimination that Latinos and Mexican-Americans experienced. This brings up a broader question for me about the comparative experience of African-Americans in WWII and of Mexican Americans in WWII, as well as in their home experiences--how are the effects of institutionalized segregation different from those of simple discrimination? You talk later on about how Mexican Americans felt more comfortable in a African American units--does this reinforce the idea of Mexican Americans as a minority to be discriminated against, or does it create solidarity within minorites (or both)? Does being part of the African American experience of WWII in any way shape the way that Mexican Americans look back on their experiences? Does it make them more susceptible to the kind of institutionalized segregation African Americans experienced? Also, how does the racialized/discriminatory outlook of Americans at large affect how Mexican Americans viewed, for instance, the Japanese? Does that help integrate Mexican Americans more to the "American" experience of WWII? Finally, what did these soldiers experience in terms of discrimination/racism while abroad (ie from Europeans, from Asians, etc)?

Hi all,

It was exciting to read so many fascinating sources!

I'll start with Chris, whose source I am presenting on:
I'll echo Tom's response in that I wonder if Ms. Gage had an expected audience for her diary? It is amazing to have a first-hand account of the attitudes of the day and I wonder if we can extrapolate that 1) this is what Mrs. Gage really thought, or 2) if this is what everyone else thought, so Mrs. Gage thought she ought to think it. Both would be valuable historical comments.
I have to think of William Byrd here, a 1700's era Virginia plantation owner whose diary was published after his death. Byrd's diary is questionable to say the least--he plays up his religiosity, but at the same time tells of ridiculous sexual escapades. It seems somewhat likely that Byrd hoped that his diary would be found, and that people would think of him in a certain way.
Are there inclinations that would point towards this assessment towards Mrs. Gage? Or absolutely not? Even if she was writing for an "audience" this source is still fascinating and can tell a lot about the time period.

Alice Hu's Primary Source Responses

Hi, everybody--sorry this is not especially timely!

Sylvie: I guess I'm confused about what WFB is doing here. He's complaining both about Vatican II and Catholics for failing to keep with the nature of Catholicism. Is he as out of touch, as it were, as he seems? It seems like WFB understands Catholicism in a very different way from many other Catholics--isn't everyone supposed to listen to the Pope, for instance? And what good does it do for Buckley to rail against Catholics who are 1) complying with Vatican II, and 2) who clearly aren't going to re-conservatize themselves? It seems like he isolates himself a lot here, not only because he distances himself from what would be his largest voter base, but also because he's making the assumption that people are voting solely on religious convictions. This seems to me like a political shot-in-the-foot, so I wonder--what did he hope to gain from this?

Jenni: First of all, I really like seeing the ads you use. It probably doesn't speak wel of my maturity, but I think they're hilarious. That being said, what I have to say is mostly a response to Tom's response to your sources. I'm not sure these are necessarily operating in terms of sexuality at all--at least, not in terms of sexuality in regards to men. Especially in contrast to the other sources that you're using--Bernice Bobs Her Hair, for instance--the absence of men and men-centric ideas, rhetoric, or language is actually pretty surprising. Well, it might not be--I'd be really upset if I saw a man in a Kotex ad on TV, come to think of it. But the point is, I think that you might look at these in terms of how a "modern woman" is defined NOT in terms of men--in terms of things like "self-actualization" (sorry for a very frou-fy and vague term) and staking a claim to womanhood or femininity through means OTHER than relationships with men, as happens in Bernice Bobs Her Hair.

Andrea: First of all, I'm a Classicist, so I find this pretty exciting.... I don't know if this strictly addresses what you're hoping to do with this source, but I'm really intrigued by the interplay of gender roles here. For instance, when Mr Terrell talks about how "Miss Church knows more Latin than I do," I'm surprised by the prominence and authority of her position as a teacher, but then when we read about her oven mishaps, she completely loses her identity as a teacher and is simply a housewife--it seems like it's possible that questions of advancement as a woman fall by the wayside when it comes to needing to present an exemplary middle class white-model marriage.

Chris: So what strikes me particularly is the word she uses in the last quote: "slave." It seems such a loaded word, I wonder--do other kinds of traditional ways of talking about slavery in the US (ie, African American slaves in the 19th century and before) crop up? How does the servitude of the Chinese change ideas of what slavery/servitude was?

Tom: Not knowing much about the political landscape of California at the time, I hope that what I have to offer isn't toooo unhelpful. I guess what strikes me in the first article about Gubser is the fuss about party labels--since you've talked about this time as sort of a turning point for Southern California, is it possible that Northern CA (Gilroy's North, right?) was aware of SoCal's changing tendencies and concerned about defining itself politically? In the same vein, the Republicans for Palo Alto also are concerned with how the Republican party is labeled--it is not necessarily a question of conservatism but one of "Republicanism." I'm just curious as to how much these two regions interacted, and if that affected how the two parties attempted to define themselves in each region.

Brendan: So, because these are, of course, told very retrospectively, I'm curious about how these veterans' attitudes to war and patriotism have changed. For instance, Guerra's account says he no longer believes in war, while Gonzalez's talks about how thankful he is for the opportunities living in the US has afforded him. Is there more of a distinction for these veterans between the military and the government/the nation at large than perhaps for veterans who did not deal with discrimination?

See you all very soon.

Responses to Sources

Hey all,

Like Jenni, these comments will be formatted person by person:

Brendan:
A few points stuck out to me from those 4 chronicles. The war is commonly believed to be a uniting force among different races and backgrounds, though these interviews seem to refute that idea. Not to say the war encourage discrimination, but instead that perhaps it did less to alleviate discrimination than popularly believed. Especially telling was Mr. Gonzalez's decision to transfer to a segregated battalion. Relating to my next point: since these are not only interviews, but interviews taken 50 years after the war, you must proceed cautiously with the emotion and commentary. These men offer some telling observations regarding how they felt and the effect the war had upon them, but how much can we trust our memories when we are so far removed? The facts of the narratives, like Mr. Gonzalez transferring battalions, speak louder than their words and provide the strongest base for an argument.

Chris:
The comments of Helen Gage are fascinating insofar as they at the very least reveal common stereotypes of Chinese immigrants. The context of these memoirs is crucial here because her words can be construed in many different ways. Do you know if she was intending these memoirs to be published? Is there any way of looking at other parts of her memoirs to formulate some sort of judgment regarding her impartiality? Perhaps I may be speaking from my own personal reservations, but I always am hesitant when people begin making generalizations about a racial group in general, whether positive or negative. Did she really think all of this or is she just regurgitating popular conceptions? Just a thought.

Andrea:
I obviously can't really know without reading the whole autobiography, but why do you think Mary Church Terrell wrote her autobiography? I don't know if you want to go into an in-depth conversation regarding the Booker T. Washington vs. W.E.B. DuBois philosophies but this passage reads just a little too idealistic for me. Perhaps it is stylized for readability, but if Mary Church Terrell is a Booker T. Washington philosophy type, as she seems to be, then it brings into question her impartiality. At least when looking at the passages, it seems like she may be trying to idealize the good and leave out the bad for the sake of representing African Americans as capable of assimilating.

Sylvie:
This source ties in so well with your argument that the abortion issue brought Catholics into the conservative camp. Furthermore, it demonstrates Buckley's justification for his strong political stances. This piece seems to suggest that Buckley sees himself as a type of moral crusader standing up for Catholic ideals in an age when the Catholic Church has gone weak. The question then becomes, why did Buckley not frame his argument as a call back to Catholicism? Buckley sees his political beliefs as defending true Catholicism, but then why did he never end up becoming a religious figure? The other question is: Is Buckley merely using his Catholicism as a tool to rally a stronger conservative base or is he truly distraught by the liberaliztion of Vatican II?

Alice:
The intriguing part of these sources is the conclusion: the Pinkerton's presence was legal and not necessarily the cause of the Homestead violence but their presence is still not acceptable in American society. Because I am discussing this in another class of mine, I think you should take a look at wider social changes during the turn of the century. The peroid from particularly 1890-1910 brought on dramatic changes in attitude towards the role of government in society. In the post-Civil War industrial period corporations were treated as individuals and in fact granted their freedom based on the 14th amendment (which originally granted slaves their freedom). In an isolated sense, the growing violence due to the Pinkerton's had a powerful role in their eventual regulation, your argument would be made much more powerful by looking at the sweeping societal changes. Americans for the first time looked to the government and society as a form of collective protection from the regulation of Pinkertons to the creation of Worker's Comp and arguably culminating in the New Deal. This idea may be too large to discuss at length in your paper, but you would be able to find numerous secondary sources for support.

Jenni:
I'm not sure if you noticed this as well, but additionally, none of the advertisements depict men. While even today no sanitary ads involve men, there exists an implication that you will be able to keep this secret from men. All of the references to embarrassment seem to be references to men, as well as the references to wearing "filmy gowns" being sexual. These aspects also seem to be skirting the line of sexuality versus modesty. My point being that the ads play with the tension in what they present, but also in what they omit. To discuss interactions with men would be too immodest and perhaps weaken the advertising.

Responses to classmates primary sources

Hey guys, here are my comments on all of your primary sources. They are all really fascinating and in several cases I found myself wishing I could read more!

Andrea - I think this is a really relevant source for your project because it specifically describes a black marriage and specific parts of that marriage. One thing that particular stood out to me was that the wife said she would be "an assistant in all departments", indicating a subservience. Was this an aspect of white middle class marriage - the position of the husband above the wife - that black partners sought to emulate? I think you are exactly right about making sure to take these autobiographical statements with a grain of salt, but I also think that this source can be considered as a wife's attempt to explain how she felt - or how she wanted people to think she felt - about her marriage and her relationship with her husband, so its biases may actually be useful in that way.

Brenden - These oral histories are really interesting - I think it's great that you chose men from a variety of backgrounds and with a variety of experiences. I'm sure you've thought of this, but one thing that came to mind is that you will need to account for the fact that these are old, proud men, and so a) their memories may not be entirely accurate and, perhaps more importantly, b) they may want to present their life stories in a certain way. However I think even with this this possible bias, using these oral histories in context with other sources will be really useful, because no matter what the exact "truth" is, these oral histories represent their teller's understanding of his own experience.

Alice - It's really great that you have found such pertinent, relevant primary sources about your topic - it looks like you will be able to take this in a great direction! Though I'm not sure exactly whether you are covering this type of question, to me, this brought up a lot of questions about exactly what the Pinkertons expected to have to handle, and what sort of contracts they were under. I think the report will be very useful to tease out some answers about the conflict between local people and "foreign" presences such as the Pinkertons.

Sylvie - This source presents you with a lot of interesting possible ways to use it. To the question of about biases - well, quite obviously, it is extremely biased, so what is important is figuring out exactly what the biases mean, and presumably, how this source reflects something larger about WFB or his points. For me, this raises questions about Buckley's intended audience as well as what he was asking them to do.

Chris - These quotes definitely raise a lot of questions about the place of Chinese servants not only within a family, but also as a part of American culture. The author seems to have her own understanding of a Chinese servant's place, and her comments remind me in a lot of ways of the comments you sometimes find about black slaves, particularly those who worked in the homes of the white family who owned them. Clearly, there is a lot of bias there, so my question would be about how Chinese servants themselves felt about the families they lived with, and how accurate this woman really was when she described the love of the servant for the family.

Tom - Both of these articles raise really interesting questions about the number of Republicans in Santa Clara County, as well as their actual power. The one about Republicans for LBJ seems to indicate that Republican support for LBJ is not very strong in the area, with only 100 people working to re-elect him. In each article, Republicans in general seem to be working somewhat on the defensive, so I'm wondering whether that is really true, or whether the bias of the newspaper/writer makes it seem that way.

Using the blog to ask questions about the writing process

As you delve deeper into the writing process, please use this blog as a space to raise questions or concerns that you have about any aspect of your paper. Feel free to ask questions about writing mechanics, using particular primary or secondary sources, organization, formulating an argument and/or connecting the argument to larger historical questions. Julie and I will read the blog regularly and we will comment on your questions. We will also discuss your questions in class.

Comments

A quick addendum to my previous post, remember that it helps everyone if you keep up with the blog, read all of the posts, and comment any questions or impressions that you might have. I will comment on all of your individual posts, but one of the best ways to get additional feedback is for you to provide it for one another.

Also, class time is limited, so any issues or questions that you have in regards to your own or another student's paper topic should go on the blog. I check the blog throughout the week, so I'll comment on any "posts between posts" as needed.

Revised Topic

I apologize for the lateness of my post, I didn't have time to visit Hoover until just yesterday. Here is my original idea, with my additional thoughts after exploring the available sources.

Although my research question and thesis are not set in stone, I am operating under a general idea that hopefully can help me narrow down my focus as my research progresses. Basically, I want to frame the minority wartime experience with the theme of our class, identities. This would break down into two main facets: how are these minority soldiers perceived by those around them (i.e. their commanders and fellow soldiers, their community back home, other minority groups, etc.) and how do they perceive themselves (ties to their original home and culture versus ties to their adopted country, the United States.) What are they fighting for? Narrow concerns such as their family? Fear of being seen as 'un-American?' Unable to find a job, and so chose the army as a last resort? Or do they believe in the cause, believe that defending America and her democratic ideals are reason enough to volunteer? Of course the background of these soldiers would play an important part in my analysis. Are they first or second generation Americans? What was their life like growing up in this country?

After looking into available sources, I may have to adjust my focus towards the home front. Looking in the Hoover archives and the Mexican-American collection, I did find one promising collection about a Cuban-American literary scholar who also served as a Sgt. In World War II. However, the majority of his writings are in Spanish (which I do not speak). I am still interested in my original research questions, but I may need to adjust my focus if I cannot find a primary source documenting a soldier’s experience.

I think I may look closer at the experience of Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants in Los Angeles during the war years (1939-1945). I have found a source that focuses on these types of experiences in Southern California. Many of these immigrants were targets for violence, which erupted into the Zoot Suit Riots. I want to examine why such divisive racial tensions existed during the war years and how they affected Mexican-American perceptions of their newly adopted home country as well as their effect on American morale in general.

- Brendan

Response to week 4 posts

I was really pleased to read all of your blog posts this week. You've all clearly narrowed down your topics considerably within your larger fields of interest. As you know, tomorrow Ben Stone will be in class and will help all of you individually in locating primary sources based on these posts. Hopefully, this will solve some of the problems cited in the "troubleshooting" portion of the assignment.

In the meantime, a few comments:

Matt--I think that the idea of comparing the rhetoric of people writing in different colonies is a good one though access to sources may be a limiting factor to how extensively this can be done. I'd also caution that you see to be suggesting in your post that the rhetoric of slavery differs from the "true feelings" of revolutionary era writers. This may be so, but don't assume that rhetoric is divorced from private beliefs. Make sure to take the published writing that you read seriously, even where you believe that authors are exaggerating or stretching a metaphor to make a greater impact.
Andrea--It will probably be possible to find some media that contains comedy routines. Audience reaction may be more difficult, but I would worry less about being able to find at least some comedy routines. It will probably be necessary though for you to limit yourself to fewer comedians in order to make the source load more manageable. You might even just pick one or two comedians to work on. Since you mentioned separating male and female comedy, you might think about picking one female comedian or a couple of female comedians and thinking about how gender informs their views on the black family and marriage.
Chris--Since you are focusing at least in part of the earthquake and on cultural matters, you'll probably find a wealth of sources. I don't think it will be much of a hindrance for you to not read Chinese, but as always it entails reading sources carefully and understanding that many of the sources will be not so much about Chinese American culture but about how white people encounter and interpret this culture. Now, part of the question then becomes how this interpretation changes (or doesn't) in response to the dislocations caused by the earthquake. I'll be interested to see in particular what sources you can find at special collections at Stanford given that you've already worked through many of the resources on campus. It could really illustrate what kind of information a new angle or question can reveal even when it seems that you've found almost everything.
Sylvie--It occurred to me while reading your post that the Hoover also has papers of some prominent Jewish conservatives active in the 1960s and 1970s. Although this clearly isn't exactly where you're going, perhaps it would interest you to look through some of these papers to see how they encounter conservativism through the lens of their religious beliefs. Perhaps some of them also published articles in the National Review? Also, both you and Tom should read the book A Time for Choosing by Jonathan Schoenwald.
Tom--See the above book recommendation in Jenni's comments. Focusing on women is a great idea. Though you might not be able to find specific information about the migrations of many of these women, you probably will be able to find organizations or campaigns that were run predominantly by women or that concerned "women's issues." In addition to the above book recommendation, I'd also see Thomas Edsall and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics. It has more information on busing and other issues that conservative women took up in large numbers.
Jenni--I won't say much since we spoke about this to some degree already. I'll just reiterate that images of the "new woman" may be both illustrative about what she is and what she is not. Images directed towards older women, who presumably are not "new women," can tell just as much about womanhood and contradictions that resulted from the cultural shift.
Alice--The story of how the Pinkertons became a large private police force in the late 19th century is one that I suspect has a great deal of regional variation. In other words, the history of the Pinkertons in the Bay Area will probably look very different from the history of the Pinkertons on the east coast. That said, I think even looking at once piece of the larger Pinkerton machine tie in to the narrative that you've laid out of the growth of private police action and violence for profit. I believe this has been said already, but I'd also point out that you're right to point out that the ethnicity of the Pinkertons and of the people who were the victims of their attention will be a factor in your analysis given that there may be conflicts between more newly arrived Irish, Italian, Eastern/Southern European and more established whites.

Revised Research Statement

Sorry this is late - mixed up the due dates.

After a good amount of deliberation, I've decided that the topic I would like to pursue this quarter is my second one: anti-British Propaganda in Colonial America. More specifically, I'd like to engage the contradiction between the rhetoric of “enslavement” to Great Britain utilized by revolutionary forces before the outbreak of the revolutionary war and the practice of economic slavery that was common in the colonies. This is by no means an absolutely unique topic, but the angle with which I plan to tackle it should definitely provide some new insights into how the contradiction was born and thrived.
In a nutshell, here are the questions I want to answer: How much did the anti-British “slavery” rhetoric contrast with the actual philosophical positions of those espousing this rhetoric? How much was genuine, how much was used as a tool of manipulation? In spite of the obvious contradiction, “slavery” rhetoric was prominent in anti-British propaganda. Something about this rhetoric must have resonated strongly with the population that the propagandists were trying to mobilize, but why? Understanding why and how this rhetoric worked so well would provide a unique lens into understanding the psychology and political/moral philosophies of average Americans, the potential foot soldiers of revolution. It would help us understand more fully what truly made the revolution possible.
The primary sources I need to look into are rather obvious – first, I'd be looking at the actual pamphlets that were disseminated by organizations such as Sons of Liberty. I also want to find documents that express revolutionaries' views of economic slavery, and private letters in which they express their true feelings for Great Britain and to what extent the relationship between Great Britain and the United States constituted “slavery.” I haven't gone through a rigorous inventory of secondary sources yet, but I definitely want to look at Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution and other sources that engage the issue of the rhetoric of slavery.

After evaluating my topic further, I feel like I have some good starting points for my research. Prof. Hobbs recommended some fantastic sources I plan on looking in to, and I'm going to talk to my adviser Prof. Rakove some time early next week.

One new idea that I've come up with is doing an analysis of how common "slavery" rhetoric was in from colony to colony. Was it used more in the South than in the North? Was the rhetoric used in a different way? I hope that I can find a variety of sources from different colonies, and also some sources that point to how prevalent slavery was in certain areas so I can see if there's anything to be found here.

I might also want to analyze the rhetoric's change over time, if there is significant change over time. Obviously I can't cover all of this, but I would like to do at least a little bit of research on all of it to see where the most interesting angles lie.

refined research topic - andrea

Sorry for the delay in posting this – my Tuesdays are hectic!

I hope to carve out more on my topic when I meet with Professor Hobbs tomorrow, but here is a more refined look at my ideas, with particular attention on the Troubleshooting section:

What began with a desire to understand the history and crisis of marriage within the black community morphed into an exploration of how black relationship are depicted by performers – specifically black comedians.

Recently, many social scientists are considering the depleted number of healthy black marriages a sign of crisis for African Americans. But if we look back to the early 1900s, it becomes clear that this may not be a recent problem – the black family has faced challenges and changed drastically over the 20th century, often for the worse. Especially among the black community, it has become customary to laugh at what causes trouble or suffering. This technique is often employed by comedians with regard to racial situations, but also black love and relationship situations as well. It’s interesting that those topics can be both draw attention to a crisis, while at the same time engaging the audience. Such routines are too often disregarded as simply entertainment to poke fun at the black community’s marriage and relationship predicament. I want to probe further and evaluate if those jokes truly reflected the situation facing the black community at the time of the comedians routines, or whether they were exaggerations, or if they missed the mark.

Because I want my research to cover the bulk of the 20th century, I want to look at the comedic routines and personal lives of comedians throughout recent history, including Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Moms Mabley, Dick Gregory, Whoopie Goldberg, among others. Secondary source material could include critics’ responses to the comedians’ comments on black relationships.

The way I see my question right now (and it is very malleable if future resources present themselves), it is two pronged:
1. comedic routines

LINGERING QUESTIONS:
- Do I have the time or space to look at this as a comparison to white relationships and how they are depicted by white comedians (or comedians of other races)? As someone mentioned in class – there is not real equivalent to Bill Cosby (a huge black marriage advocate and comedian) in the white community. Then again, is there a need for one?
- Should I consider separating female from male comedians?
- What do the comedians think their audience is taking away from these kinds of routines?
TROUBLESHOOTING:
- I am concerned about finding primary sources other than comedic routines. I’d like to find letters, diaries, or other original materials from these performers, so I’d need some guidance about where to do look first.
- Where can I read and/or hear these routines, from a reliable source?

Refined Research Statement

Specifics

In the aftermath of the Chinese immigrant influx and the resultant exclusion acts of the late 1800s, the remaining Chinese would play a major part in every-day life in the formation of early Bay Area history, particularly at Stanford University. Working as servants, cooks and janitors, or running laundries, the early students and residents of the university town would have interacted with the Chinese on a daily basis. How did the cultural interaction play a role in defining the Chinese to the Americans of the time, and vice-versa? Then-Manchu-ruled China dictated aspects of personal presentation and dress, which made the Chinese stand out among any population--sometimes incurring fascination, and other times bringing on ridicule or anger. At a time when many Chinese were discriminated against in big cities such as San Francisco, how did these race-relations play out in the context of the university and the surrounding towns? Based on my former research, the Chinese population declined drastically during the first two decades of the twentieth century, from a height around 1900. What caused this decline? My hypothesis is that the 1906 earthquake was responsible for the major shifts in population at the time, an I'd be interested in finding out if there were also concurrent shifts in perception of the Chinese and cultural interaction.

Significance

The connection between Stanford and the Chinese servants who worked for the senator before the founding of the university was something that didn’t occur to me until encountering some of the primary source documents. The work done by these Chinese immigrants helped start the school, and I think that filling in the background for the cultural aspect of Chinese-American relationships would fill in this gap in early university history. Looking at how the Chinese-American relations shifted during the turn of the century, and with the 1906 earthquake, would be more broadly applicable to race-relations during times of upheaval.

Troubleshooting

Well . . . I can't read Chinese. I'm going to be limited to using English documents, which may either give me a bias for relationships looking Eastward, or limit me to sources that have been translated. Since I'll be looking at American sources, this may not be such a big problem, although the issue of lack of material evidence may itself become a problem. I will also have to deal with small collections at diverse locations, but hopefully telephone and online contact will enable me to narrow down the more likely sources of information.

Sources

I intend to go back to the Census records that I began to look at last time in order to narrow down names and locations of Chinese servants in order to get new ideas of where, or who, to search. I'm also excited to go to the Chinese Historical Society in San Francisco, something I have yet to do during my interest in this subject, since I suspect that a lot of material, even if it doesn’t relate directly to Stanford, will be applicable to Chinese-American experiences of the time. Student letters and memoirs of the early years of Stanford University will also be very important. Green Library has a wealth of second-hand sources regarding the effect of the 1906 earthquake on the Bay Area in general, and since this wasn’t the focus of any of my interests before, this will probably provide quite a bit of information I have yet to see. Historical societies in Menlo Park and Palo Alto, and possibly Portola Valley, will also be valuable.

Refined Research statement - Sylvie

I will be researching William F. Buckley, Jr.'s personal religiosity (he was a devout Catholic). I want to examine the connection between his Catholicism and his creation of the modern conservative movement: how did his faith shape his social and political values that made up this movement? How did the fact that he was Catholic while most others in the modern conservative movement that he was spearheading were Protestant effect his work? Were there conflicts over his religion? Modern conservatism is not a Catholic movement by any means, but many of the values that WFB professed seemed linked in part to his religion. How can we consider the roots of the movement and different camps of Christianity?

I plan to use the Hoover Archive as extensively as possible, though I realize that some of the Buckely papers there are of a financial nature (i.e. are concerned with his book contracts and the like) rather than a personal nature. I think that I will have to look at the papers of Buckley's colleagues and correspondents in order to get primary source material on him at Hoover.

Of course I will also use Buckley's published writings, but am hoping to find some letters and papers that can give me an insight into his personal religiosity a little more. It was suggested to me by our writing fellow, Julie, that I might look at WFB Sr.'s papers to get information on WFB Jr.'s childhood and adolescence I will be researching William F. Buckley, Jr.'s personal religiosity (he was a devout Catholic). I want to examine the connection between his Catholicism and his creation of the modern conservative movement: how did his faith shape his social and political values that made up this movement? How did the fact that he was Catholic while most others in the modern conservative movement that he was spearheading were Protestant effect his work? Were there conflicts over his religion? Modern conservatism is not a Catholic movement by any means, but many of the values that WFB professed seemed linked in part to his religion. How can we consider the roots of the movement and different camps of Christianity?

I plan to use the Hoover Archive as extensively as possible, though I realize that some of the Buckely papers there are of a financial nature (i.e. are concerned with his book contracts and the like) rather than a personal nature. I think that I will have to look at the papers of Buckley's colleagues and correspondents in order to get primary source material on him at Hoover.

Of course I will also use Buckley's published writings, but am hoping to find some letters and papers that can give me an insight into his personal religiosity a little more. It was suggested to me by our writing fellow, Julie, that I might look at WFB Sr.'s papers to get information on WFB Jr.'s childhood and adolescence, and the role of religion in the Buckley family household.

Further Refined Topic Ideas

My topic is going to be an analysis of the evolution of the American frontier and how it came to embody the American West, specifically California, in the post-WWII era of the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The main figures of my argument are going to be the suburban residents of Orange County in the post-war era but I will also bring in some important historiographic figures such as Frederick Jackson Turner and political figures that embody the movement such as Ronald Reagan. I would also like to study some of the major figures in Orange Country during the era but at this point I need to do more research into who exactly those people were and what was their function in the community.
I realize that I can take this foundational idea and go any number of ways. The sources I can uncover and find are going to be instrumental in determining how I proceed. To be more specific about my possible directions, I am going to attempt to frame post-WWII Southern California as the frontier described by Frederick Jackson Turner. Turner laments the death of the American frontier and predicts the end of political innovation and freedom on the frontier, but what happened in post-WWII Southern California was the political change that Turner believed to be no longer possible. I would like to find some key figures, specifically women, who migrated to Southern California from the Midwest following WWII and I would like to analyze their role in the movement and analyze not only how their experience was shaped by their migration, but also how they were able to forge such a movement given their position in the social order.
I am cognizant of the possibility that I won’t find a strong narrative for specific individuals in Southern California, in which case I will attempt to follow political, community and religious groups. I also need to do research into an array of secondary sources that will help me develop the foundation necessary to proceed with any type of detailed argument regarding specific people or groups in Orange County. I have already read Suburban Warriors by Lisa McGirr, but now I need to go back and hopefully I will be able to find some of her sources and also hopefully I can do some looking to find secondary sources that either McGirr relies upon or that have been published more recently and rely heavily on McGirr.

more refined topic - Jenni Ockelmann

Specifics
After the end of World War I, a new era of popular film, and the changing values and behaviors of a group of American women brought to the American scene the image of the flapper. The term was first used in a 1920 film called “The Flapper” starring Olive Thomas, and it quickly began to take on a shape of its own as young, primarily working-class, urban women began to step out of the home and engage in newly public and provocative behaviors, completely breaking down the Victorian propriety of their parents. Some of the things most closely associated with flappers were makeup, particularly “ringed” eyes and dark lips and cheeks, shorter dresses that emphasized the straight, flatness of a woman’s body, and dancing, drinking, and smoking, along with looser sexual behaviors and more male-female contact. Though the era of the flapper was not particularly long – their lavish, playful lifestyle could not survive into the Great Depression – the flapper became America’s definition of a generation of young women. The flapper – and especially the comparison between the image on-screen as well as real life women – will be the focus of my paper.
Argument
While I am not sure exactly where my research will lead me or what I might end up concluding, I would like to focus my search on working towards an answer to the question of whether or not the reality and the image of the 1920s flapper girls helped to lead to a culture in which the expression of female independence and sexuality was acceptable, or if it only reaffirmed stereotypes about uneducated, lower-class, promiscuous women and helped spur a conservative counter-movement that served to silence female expression. I will explore this using a comparison of the “image” of the flapper girl, through films, contemporary articles, and works of fiction, with personal accounts and tales of women who identified as flappers. At the same time, I will be reconstructing the idea of the flapper in her own words

Significance
The idea of the flapper is significant for several reasons. The “sexual revolution” in America did not occur until nearly 40 years after the first women defined as flappers went out to speakeasies and went home with men, and somewhere in between very different images of women became the standard-bearer of memory – images of the sacrificing woman giving up her husband and sons to the war in the 1940s, of the homemade perfection of Mrs. Cleaver. How did the flappers – girls in their late teens and early 20s in the third decade of the 20th century – become the women they would be 20 and 30 years later? What can the comparison between the flappers in popular films such as “The Flapper” and “It” and the flappers who left their family homes to venture out to dance halls and speakeasies show us about how the culture of the flapper evolved?


Troubleshooting
It might be difficult to balance the “image” of the flapper with the lives of real women, and determine which played more of a role in determining behaviors and sexual mores – that is, answering the question in each situation of whether life imitated art or art imitated life. It might also prove difficult to avoid generalizing across ethnic, class, and geographical lines, if my sources come primarily from only one of those categories. I will probably need to focus my research on white, working class or middle-class women in urban areas, not because the other classes or types of women are insignificant, but because those will be the sources which may be most prolific. Additionally, these women are the types who may most closely identify with the white, middle-class/upper-class type of woman portrayed in popular film, and will be more crucial to my comparison. However, even in choosing this specific focus or type of woman, I will need to be careful not to over-generalize or limit myself in the way I think about women and those who identified as flappers. My major concern right now is narrowing my topic – I am working to find a specific angle or question to answer, but so far my research has not pointed me towards anything that will help me to drastically cut down my topic.

Sources
I have identified several sources that I will use to begin my research. In order to explore the “image” of the flapper in popular film and media, I will be watching “The Flapper”, the Olive Thomas film that first used the term in America, as well as “It”, starring Clara Bow, who was also associated with the flapper image. I will also be reading some biographical information about these women and others in Hollywood to understand their lifestyles and determine if these celebrities had an impact on the lifestyles of average women.
Other primary sources that I have started to find (and hope to find more of) include diaries and letters of young women in the 1920s. Though many of these diaries and letters understandably come from older women, and many others are from married women who do not really comment on the flapper lifestyle, I am searching for a few solid primary texts from young women who may have their own comments about their lifestyle choices or habits.
In order to examine to lives and perceptions of ordinary, non-celebrity flapper women in this time period, I will be doing research beginning with Flapper : a madcap story of sex, style, celebrity, and the women who made America modern by Joshua Zeitz, and Flappers, and the new American woman : perceptions of women from 1918 through the 1920s by Catherine Gourley. One other text that may cross the line between celebrity and ordinary women is Posing a threat : flappers, chorus girls, and other brazen performers of the American 1920s by Angela J. Latham because it concerns both amateur and professional performers, and though this may cause difficulty in determining whether the source of any information is professional or amateur, it may also be a valuable source to delve into that divide. For additional background, I will be looking at some of the short stories from F. Scott Fitzgerald, such as “Bernice Bobs Her Hair”, which concern women in the 1920s.

Refined Research Statment, 10/12 (Alice Hu)

Specifics
The Pinkerton Detective Agency came into its own as a private law-enforcement and detective group during the Civil War and the years immediately following. While George B. McClellan commanded the Army of the Potomac, Allan Pinkerton and his small cadre of detectives worked as undercover spies. After McClellan was relieved of command, the Pinkertons withdrew from the Civil War and found a niche apprehending train robbers, counterfeiters, and mail thieves. In all of these cases the Pinkertons preserved a role as undercover agents and spies, infiltrating crime rings and keeping them under surveillance, reporting back to Pinkerton until sufficient charges could be made. Late in the 19th century, the Pinkertons contracted with private corporations to become guards and enforcers for the corporations in labor union strikes or unrest, but Pinkerton involvement continued to consist of either providing guards or going undercover to infiltrate agitating labor groups.
By 1892 the nature of the Pinkertons’ involvement in labor changed drastically. In the case of the labor strike at Andrew Carnegie’s steel mill in Homestead, Pennsylvania, the Carnegie Steel Company locked its striking workers out of the plant. The Pinkertons, whom Carnegie Steel had already contracted as guards, then sent hundreds of Pinkerton agents in via barge, ostensibly to prevent any of the mob of striking workers from entering the plant. The mob refused to let the Pinkertons come ashore: shots were fired, culminating in a bloody battle in which dozens were killed and injured.
I want to examine how this remarkable transition came about: how did the Pinkertons transform from undercover agents to all-out infantry? The nature of the crime that the Pinkertons fought and the rhetoric and motivation behind fighting that crime and how to fight it seems to have undergone a radical shift in these years, and I wish to understand what that shift was and how it came about.

Argument
I think that I have pinpointed the ways, primarily, in which the Pinkertons’ role morphed. Firstly, it became far more violent. In the Civil War, the most dangerous action that Pinkertons engaged in consisted in chasing Confederate spies in the streets. Although one Pinkerton spy was caught and hung by the Confederates, by and large Pinkertons engaged in little violent activity. By the time the Pinkertons arrived at Homestead, they much more resembled a regular standing army: they were prepared to beat their way through a massive blockade of human bodies, even killing some. Secondly, the scope of the Pinkertons’ action drastically increased. Previously a few agents were sent in to infiltrate labor organizations: even in the Civil War only about ten Pinkertons were actively operating. At Homestead, over 300 Pinkertons were sent in, nearly all of whom sustained injuries.
I think that the escalation of violence has to do with the Pinkertons’ experience fighting gangs of robbers in the West: particularly in their brief entanglement with the James Gang, which killed two Pinkerton agents, one gruesomely, violence seemed to escalate both in its scope and brutality. The Pinkertons bombed the James’ mother’s home, seriously maiming her and killing James’ eight-year-old brother. Other entanglements with vigilante groups of townspeople in the West, who either stood to benefit from the bandits’ activity and defended them or wanted to lynch them, may have also contributed to this growing violence. Racial and class factors undoubtedly influence it as well.
As for how the Pinkertons transformed into a mass crime fighting unit, practically an army unit, I am less certain. Crime-fighting for the Pinkertons was previously quite personal: they profiled their targets as meticulously as any psychological profiler today, and, while undercover, they even grew friendly and intimate with the criminals they eventually brought in. Perhaps it is something specific to fighting labor, or perhaps it is a holdover from the Civil War, but in fighting labor at Homestead, the Pinkertons transformed from an elite detective force into infantry.

Significance
I believe that it is always of interest to dissect the reasons why we fight other humans—what drives us to believe that violence is acceptable and even necessary, and the kind of violence we carry out, and against whom. Particularly salient and troubling is violence between people who are, in general, united. Understanding how working men are able to make war on and even kill other working men like themselves is, I think, worth some investigation and reflection.
I also think that labor disputes are particularly informative instances to examine: they are unique in that they are the first instance since the Civil War in which white Americans fought other white Americans. I view the Civil War as a moment of essential redefinition of war and violence in the United States. As the first instance of real “total war,” the Civil War set precedents for the major violent encounters that followed it, and in many ways allowed for the expansion of “total war” in America into spheres not generally considered “war,” including war against specific individuals, such as the James brothers, against fellow white people, against class equals, and against noncombatant laborers—all of which the Pinkertons encapsulated in the late 19th century.

Primary Literature
The Pinkerton Detective Agency (which has now merged with another private security agency, Securitas) still holds extensive archives of its escapades (with the exception of much of its Civil War and pre-Civil War holdings, which were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire). This includes Allan Pinkerton’s correspondence and diaries as well as those of his two sons, Robert and William, who succeeded him. It also includes the reports and correspondence of the undercover agents, who all reported to Pinkerton or his sons. These, I think, will be of the utmost importance to me.
There are also court records that may be of use. The Pinkertons were instrumental in breaking up the terroristic Irish labor group, the Molly Maguires, and in the court cases that followed, the agent who had infiltrated the group testified (which Pinkerton’s Agency prohibits). After the fiasco at Homestead, Congress investigated the matter, and so the records of the hearing are also incredibly important.
Finally, newspapers exhaustively covered many of the incidents in which Pinkertons were involved: chasing gangs in the West, the Molly Maguire case, and the Homestead Strike.

Secondary Literature
It seems that there is very little major recent scholarship on the Pinkertons. Most of my book sources on the Pinkertons are from the 1960s—the most recent is from 1982. My literature on the Homestead Strike is only slightly more recent. This is good news for me, since very little further work has been done with the available archival material, although it seems to be well organized and accessible.
A small selection of articles on the involvement of private law enforcement agencies in labor disputes also complements my books, but most of them focus on the labor disputes themselves, rather than the Pinkertons.

Troubleshooting
For me, there are two primary problems. I think that it will be impossible to get through all of the factors that played into the escalation of Pinkerton violence. I want to narrow it down to a select few: Pinkerton experiences in the West, for instance, and racial or class factors. I am not sure yet, however, which of those will be the most compelling factors, so for now I will have to keep looking into them.
Secondly, I am concerned about getting access to these archives. That might be an insurmountable problem, but one that I will hope doesn’t come up!

Response to more refined topics, part II

I hope that this weekend many of you had a chance to review the note cards with questions from your classmates and think about how you would answer some of the questions posed about your research. Even if the question was posed during class, how would you answer it today, given a few more days of reading and thinking? If you haven't, it might be fruitful for you to sit down and think about the questions as you're formulating your posts for Tuesday in anticipation of the library trip on Thursday.

For those of you who posted after Thursday morning, a few comments:

Jenni--In addition to the books and movies that you identified, you might want to read the novel Breadgivers by Anzia Yezierska. It's a good point/counterpoint to 1920s images of the working class women and the glamor of independence. It's also a pretty fast read. More importantly, now that you've identified a theme, you should start thinking about what your archival sources should be. Maybe you could look at the papers of a reform group that targeted working class women, a union (a strike?), or an individual woman who ties together some of the themes that interest you. Start looking around online or at Stanford for collections to further refine the topic.
Brendan--We talked Thursday, so I'll just remind you that you should also check the collections at the Bancroft.
Matt--Last week, you indicated that you were going to talk to Professor Rakove about your project. I wonder if you've done so? He might be a good resource for finding archival material that you can use from the colonial period around the Bay area. I'm aware as well that there is a limited amount of material here at special collections. You should check and see what if available, personal papers as well as newspapers and other printed materials.

After some initial research, I have chosen to pursue the topic of flapper girls in the 1920s. After the end of World War I, a new era of popular film, and the changing values and behaviors of a group of American women brought to the American scene the image of the flapper. Though first used in a 1920 film called “The Flapper” starring Olive Thomas, the term quickly began to take on a shape of its own as young, primarily working-class, urban women began to step out of the home and engage in behaviors that they never had before – smoking, drinking, wild dancing, dating, and casual sex among others. Though the era of the flapper was not particularly long – their lavish, playful lifestyle could not survive into the Great Depression – the flapper defined a generation of young women. The flapper – and especially the comparison between the image on-screen as well as real life women – will be the focus of my paper.
The idea of the flapper is significant for several reasons. The “sexual revolution” in America did not occur until nearly 40 years after the first flappers went out to speakeasies and went home with men, and somewhere in between very different images of women became the standard-bearer of memory – images of the sacrificing woman giving up her husband and sons to the war in the 1940s, of the homemade perfection of Mrs. Cleaver. How did the flappers – girls in their late teens and early 20s in the third decade of the 20th century – become the women they would be 20 and 30 years later? What can the comparison between the flappers in popular films such as “The Flapper” and “It” and the flappers who ventured out to dance halls and speakeasies show us about how the culture of the flapper evolved, and what happened to it after the 20s ended?
While I am not sure exactly where my research will lead me or what I might end up concluding, at this point I would like to focus my search on working towards an answer to the question of whether or not the reality and the image of the 1920s flapper girls helped to lead to a culture in which the expression of female independence and sexuality was acceptable, or if it only reaffirmed stereotypes about uneducated, lower-class, promiscuous women and helped spur a conservative counter-movement that served to silence female expression. I will explore this using a comparison of the “image” of the flapper girl, through films and contemporary articles and criticisms, with personal accounts and more working-class views of women who identified as flappers.
One issue that may cause me trouble over the course of my research is narrowing my topic and, specifically, determining which sources are important and valid and which are not. It will also be difficult to balance the “image” of the flapper with the lives of real women, and determine which played more of a role in determining sexual mores and what later generations thought of 1920s women. It will might also prove difficult to avoid generalizing across ethnic, class, and geographical lines, if my sources come primarily from only one of those categories. In the end, I will probably need to focus my research on white, working class or middle-class women in urban areas, not because the other classes or types of women are insignificant, but because those will be the sources which are most prolific and most similar to the “image” of flappers in films.
I have identified several sources that I will use to begin my research. First, in order to explore the “image” of the flapper in popular film and media, I will be watching “The Flapper”, the Olive Thomas film that first used the term in America, as well as “It”, starring Clara Bow, who also became known widely as a flapper. I will also be reading some biographical information about these women and others in Hollywood to understand their lifestyles and determine if these celebrities had an impact on the lifestyles of average women. In order to examine to lives and perceptions of ordinary, non-celebrity flapper women in this time period, I will be doing research beginning with Flapper : a madcap story of sex, style, celebrity, and the women who made America modern by Joshua Zeitz, and Flappers, and the new American woman : perceptions of women from 1918 through the 1920s by Catherine Gourley. One other text that may cross the line between celebrity and ordinary women is Posing a threat : flappers, chorus girls, and other brazen performers of the American 1920s by Angela J. Latham because it concerns both amateur and professional performers, and though this may cause difficulty in determining whether the source of any information is professional or amateur, it may also be a valuable source to delve into that divide. For additional background, I will be looking at some of the short stories from F. Scott Fitzgerald, such as “Bernice Bobs Her Hair”, which concern women in the 1920s.