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
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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?
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!
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!
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)?
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)?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)