Reading response week 3

Readings: David Waldstreicher's “Reading the Runaways: Self-Fashioning, Print Culture, and Confidence in Slavery in the Eighteenth-Century Mid-Atlantic,” Karen Halttunen's “Confidence Men and Painted Ladies: A Study of Middle-Class Culture in America,” and George Chauncey's “Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940”

Waldstreicher’s central argument highlights the paradox presented by slavery (specifically slave runaways) and the establishment that ought to contain them. He highlights the fact that the skills used by slaves to successfully pass as free men were what made them effective slaves in the first place. He goes on the in article to discuss the nature of “cultural hybridization” used by runaway slaves – the adoption of what they saw as acceptable social norms that would allow them to pass for free men in the North and Mid-Atlantic. The extensive use of primary sources lends authenticity to his argument. However, the most remarkable aspect of Waldsteicher’s article is that he is able to weave these sources together into a compelling narrative. Something I really took away from this piece is that it is important to remember that primary documents tell a story, and recreating that story should be one of the main objectives of an historical article. In many cases it is easy to become overwhelmed by a large amount of material. When that happens the writing tends to come off as disjointed, like a series of smaller analyses of different historical evidence. Waldstreicher finds the connections and parallels between his different sources and presents an overall thesis that is both clear and well supported.

Halttunen also talks about the power of identity as a concept. In this case, however, she discusses the fear associated with not knowing someone’s ‘true’ identity. This argument draws its evidence from a specific context: the rise of confidence men in the newly emerging urban environment in middle-class America during the 1800s. Her narrative also draws much of its backing from firsthand accounts found in pamphlets warning of confidence men. Halttunen uses the analysis of secondary sources more frequently than Waldstricher. For her the secondary sources become a sort of corroboration of her thesis. The drawback to this is that it leaves little room for original analysis by the author.

Chauncey’s piece again explores the theme of identity refashioning, this time in the context of the pre World War II gay community in New York. His argument is I think the most compelling because it breaks with the traditional notions put forward by other historians like D'Emilio, Berube and Faderman. Chauncey argues that the gay movement was not a continuous march towards freedom and equality. In the pre World War II period, much of the hay subculture stayed in the shadows of society, avoiding being noticed to avoid being persecuted. This led many to pass for straight, which Chauncey compares to the metaphor of ‘staying in the closet.’ Overall, I think Chauncey’s piece is the best demonstration of how to argue a counterpoint. Instead of ignoring the other side, he addresses their points, then step by step deconstructs their arguments, and follows a presentation of his own evidence and analysis.

- Brendan