All three tales of identity involve the subject manipulating the perceptions of others in order to achieve an important goal. The 3 authors, however, go about presenting these diverse identities in different ways using different sources. David Waldstreicher’s analysis of 18th-century slave runaways employs primarily ads placed by those runaways’ owners in newspapers. This type of source is fascinating – and informative for his goals – because he manages to tease out the various characteristics and identities of their slave that the owners either preferred to project, or, in some cases, were forced reluctantly to acknowledge. Waldstreicher also explored the depths of the runaway’s alternate identities – often as free men – and explained how they used various signals, such as literacy, language use, and advanced skills to pass as people who were free. The very idea of passing brings up extremely interesting questions about identity – if someone can change their identity at will, how can one account for identity at all?
One of the most important lessons to be learned from all of these articles is the importance of recognizing the many layers of identity that one person may consider part of himself or herself, or that one source may acknowledge. In Gay New York, for example, one of the crucial takeaway points concerns the fact that what may look like one group – in this case, gay men in New York in the pre-WWII era – may in fact be made up of people who identify in very different ways. George Chauncey’s exploration of the lives that gay men led in New York served to tear down several myths of gay life in this period and show that though there were many types and identities of gay men, there was a strong, vibrant and often visible community even within the intolerant atmosphere of the pre-war period.
Chauncey spent a lot of time focusing on distinctions between different identities that gay men took on – as “queers” or “fairies” in particular – as well as the different characteristics that each of these groups took on, as well as the intersection between their gay identities and the “straight” lives that some of them also lived. Chauncey’s most interesting and informative sources were the first-hand accounts and stories he had from gay men who had lived in New York during this era, and he often used police records, news articles, and some testimony from “normal” people in New York as a backdrop to these primary sources.
In her book on Confidence Men in the 19th century, Karen Halttunen uses the writings of a particular set of people – primarily advice books from the leaders of American society – to account for the changing identities associated with young men, and all of America, in the time of the confidence man. More important than any individual identities, Halttunen’s study of confidence men and the boys they preyed upon reveal the changing identity of America. The identity of young men, leaving home and community for the first time to join urban life, was changing drastically, and the writers of advice books was blaming these changes on confidence men. Halttunen uses her sources to suggest that these changes were not merely the doing of these confidence men, but were part of the changing fabric of America and American identity. Halttunen’s sources may not have covered every aspect of the identity of these confidence men, as she did not include anything written by any self-proclaimed confidence man or by any young man entering urban life. The advice books written had a very clear slant that Halttunen uses in her explanations – the authors were often some of the leaders of society and worried that their leadership would soon be ignored. Though it would have been interesting to read some accounts from confidence men themselves, they probably would have been very difficult, if even possible, to obtain based on the fact that confidence men were not open about their motives or intentions
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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.
- Brendan
Reading Response II
The readings this week were united by the common theme of appearances in society, and often their deviance from the class or culture expectations of what those appearances suggest. George Chauncy , in his research on homosexual communities within New York, draws an important distinction regarding the idea of a united “Gay New York”— while pointing out that there was a less limited view of what it meant to be Gay only within a specific community, a “world” rather than a “closet,” he also makes a case for not a single gay world, but rather multiple communities made up along lines of class and culture. Drawing both from investigative reports of the time, during which homosexuality was still classified as a psychological disorder, as well as anecdotes of individual’s experiences, often from memoirs, Chauncy creates an effective image of “forgotten” communities. Chauncy also takes on a bigger picture, something that adds depth to his research: the use of terminology, in this case “normal” versus “queer” or “gay,” and what the repetition of that terminology implicates. This is as relevant now as it was sixty years ago, applicable outside the realm of sexual orientation when dealing with how any cultural group is compared with a supposed societal norm, often a standard set by a smaller group than the word “normal” should imply. Chauncy’s discussions of homosexual “passing” recalls race and class situations outside of the context of sexual orientation.
A different aspect of this “passing” as something while feeling or being different applies to the subject of the other two papers we read this week—both Karen Hulttunen and David Waldstreicher’s exploration of “Confidence Men,” the wily charlatans who took advantage of the naïve and new-comers to the emerging cities of 18th and 19th century America. Reading about these characters reminded me instantly of the Artful Dodger or the Duke and the Dauphin, literary characters who share traits with the confidence men described in the 19th century reports. Though obviously a character-type of young America, I found it interesting, and somewhat weakening to the essay, that the descriptions of confidence men in Hulttunen’s article were limited to contemporary warnings against such figures, rather than anecdotes about real situations that occurred. This may be due to the embarrassment of reporting those situations at the time—I don’t know if such anecdotes exist in abundance—but their absence without qualification made me wonder on what the warnings were actually founded. Waldstreicher’s article used the most primary sources of any of the three, with multiple examples of the escaped slaves and their masters about whom he wrote. I enjoyed being able to look at hard numbers and tables, particularly after feeling these lacking in the previous article, and this makes me want to incorporate such evidence into my own paper when I write. I also found his explanation for lack of even greater evidence, the fact that the subject of confidence men itself deals with deception and tracing it would have been intentionally difficult, to be convincing and a good explanation for the lack of evidence used in Hulttunen’s article. From a material perspective, which I enjoy and hope to incorporate because of my interest in archaeology, I found the author’s attention to clothing and the way that it would have been used to manipulate identity expectations to be fascinating, and again, something applicable to today down to the way we present ourselves in interviews or before family versus interaction with peers, the latter of which was itself an increasing phenomenon of the 19th century reorganization of daily interaction—a peer-group emphasis, in which appearance is more easily manipulated, versus a hierarchy in which appearance is dictated or dismissed.
Overall, I enjoyed the writing style of Chauncy, which I found to read more like a book than a paper, but I found Waldstreicher’s use and presentation of evidence to be appealing. All three build their subjects into something that is relevant today, something I hope to do as well.
After much deliberation, I have decided to pursue my topic about minority soldiers' experiences during World War II. Logistically, it would very difficult to pursue a paper on Robert McNamara simply because his papers are located at the LBJ Library.
The only way I can answer the questions designed to refine my topic is to actually explore the archives available to me and see what materials I have to work with. Something I plan to do this weekend is look at what primary sources are actually available here at Stanford. My goal is to find a diary detailing a soldier's experiences, ideally including the periods before, during, and after the war. I thought I would start in the Mexican-American section of the Hoover Archives. Julie also pointed me towards another great resource: the African-American Mueseum and Library in Oakland. Between the two I hope to find enough primary material to work with.
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 percieve themselves (ties to their original home and culture versus ties to their adopted country, the United States.) What are they fighitng 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 imortant part in my analysis. Are they first or second generation Americans? What was their life like growing up in this country?
I need to work backwards a little bit and tailor my paper to what sources are actually available, but hopefully this gives you guys an idea of what I'm going for.
- Brendan
Expanded research topic
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.
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.
Identity Fashioning Analysis
Sorry this is late: I thought it was due before class. My bad!
All three of this week's 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” engage the issues of identity and identity transformation as a means of interpreting the societies in which the papers' respective identities engaged with.
Waldstreicher's article seeks to reflect a more nuanced construction of mid 18th century mid-Atlantic society by analyzing the way in which runaway slave advertisements' attitudes engaged with the emerging role of runaways as “confidence men.” The introduction is well formed and states the purpose of the article quite clearly” to “[use runaway advertisements to analyze the acts of cultural hybridization black and racially mixed people committed...and to evaluate the owners' use of print to counter the mobility of the unfree...” Unfortunately, this structure fails to carry throughout the bulk of the article, which further complicates the argumentation of the main body. Making matters more difficult for the reader, the body simultaneously argues two strains of thought: how these “confidence men” operated, and how print responded. More explicit structure could have really helped this article get its point across more clearly. That having been said, the sources used are very effective at bolstering the argument. The heavy reliance and citation of primary sources lends the argument a sense of authenticity, and though other historical arguments are not explicitly engaged with any degree of frequency, the secondary sources used do reinforce the argumentation. I feel like the most important lesson one can take out of this paper is how to center a unique, creative argument around primary sources.
The section from Halttunen's book reads more like a narrative than an argument at times, which works to the book's advantage by maintaining the reader's interest. Like Waldstreicher, Halttunen does a phenomenal job engaging primary sources, explicitly breaking down the rhetoric and frequency of common themes in passages from early 19th century guides for young men. I found the core of her argument – the connection between fear of the “confidence man” and the necessity of “republican virtue” to maintain the republic – to be both bold and fascinating. The structure of the work is very sound – the first part of the paper gives us all we need to know about attitudes towards confidence men, and then the more solid argumentative section in the latter part of the paper looks for explanations for the previously described attitudes. My only issue with this work is that the argument could have been outlined or framed better at the beginning of the chapter. However, we must keep in mind that this is an excerpt from a book, not an article, and without reading the entire book it is impossible to completely understand the function of the first chapter in relation to the work as a whole.
We run into the same type of issue with the section Chauncey's book, Gay New York, but, like the Halttunen excerpt, the selected section succeeds on its own merits. The two sections have two different arguments: the first, that Gay culture thrived, though in a different way than it does today, in pre-WWII New York, the second, that “fairies” provide a mechanism with which to understand the Gay culture of the time. I think that the strongest part of Chauncey's writing is his engagement with other historical theories and “myths” about pre-WWII Gay culture. He does not discount the merits of the arguments, but systematically debunks their logic or command of the facts. There isn't as much hard evidence from primary sources in this selection as the previous two, but the primary source citations that are used are used masterfully. Like Halttunen's work, Chauncey's work combines argumentation with narrative, but in a way that is structured more soundly and makes more sense to the reader. From the introduction onward, we as readers know exactly what direction the work is going to go in, making the argumentation much more easy and enjoyable to process.
Ultimately, there are things to take from from each of these works. Depending on the style of the paper one is trying to write, any of these three could serve as a sufficient primary model with which to take structural insights from.
All three of this week's 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” engage the issues of identity and identity transformation as a means of interpreting the societies in which the papers' respective identities engaged with.
Waldstreicher's article seeks to reflect a more nuanced construction of mid 18th century mid-Atlantic society by analyzing the way in which runaway slave advertisements' attitudes engaged with the emerging role of runaways as “confidence men.” The introduction is well formed and states the purpose of the article quite clearly” to “[use runaway advertisements to analyze the acts of cultural hybridization black and racially mixed people committed...and to evaluate the owners' use of print to counter the mobility of the unfree...” Unfortunately, this structure fails to carry throughout the bulk of the article, which further complicates the argumentation of the main body. Making matters more difficult for the reader, the body simultaneously argues two strains of thought: how these “confidence men” operated, and how print responded. More explicit structure could have really helped this article get its point across more clearly. That having been said, the sources used are very effective at bolstering the argument. The heavy reliance and citation of primary sources lends the argument a sense of authenticity, and though other historical arguments are not explicitly engaged with any degree of frequency, the secondary sources used do reinforce the argumentation. I feel like the most important lesson one can take out of this paper is how to center a unique, creative argument around primary sources.
The section from Halttunen's book reads more like a narrative than an argument at times, which works to the book's advantage by maintaining the reader's interest. Like Waldstreicher, Halttunen does a phenomenal job engaging primary sources, explicitly breaking down the rhetoric and frequency of common themes in passages from early 19th century guides for young men. I found the core of her argument – the connection between fear of the “confidence man” and the necessity of “republican virtue” to maintain the republic – to be both bold and fascinating. The structure of the work is very sound – the first part of the paper gives us all we need to know about attitudes towards confidence men, and then the more solid argumentative section in the latter part of the paper looks for explanations for the previously described attitudes. My only issue with this work is that the argument could have been outlined or framed better at the beginning of the chapter. However, we must keep in mind that this is an excerpt from a book, not an article, and without reading the entire book it is impossible to completely understand the function of the first chapter in relation to the work as a whole.
We run into the same type of issue with the section Chauncey's book, Gay New York, but, like the Halttunen excerpt, the selected section succeeds on its own merits. The two sections have two different arguments: the first, that Gay culture thrived, though in a different way than it does today, in pre-WWII New York, the second, that “fairies” provide a mechanism with which to understand the Gay culture of the time. I think that the strongest part of Chauncey's writing is his engagement with other historical theories and “myths” about pre-WWII Gay culture. He does not discount the merits of the arguments, but systematically debunks their logic or command of the facts. There isn't as much hard evidence from primary sources in this selection as the previous two, but the primary source citations that are used are used masterfully. Like Halttunen's work, Chauncey's work combines argumentation with narrative, but in a way that is structured more soundly and makes more sense to the reader. From the introduction onward, we as readers know exactly what direction the work is going to go in, making the argumentation much more easy and enjoyable to process.
Ultimately, there are things to take from from each of these works. Depending on the style of the paper one is trying to write, any of these three could serve as a sufficient primary model with which to take structural insights from.
Comments on refined paper topics.
I'm glad to find that most of you have been thinking about your topics and making some choices about what it is that really interests you within the broader themes that you identified last week. Today in class we will be talking more about your topics, and you will have a chance to reflect on your classmates' posts. I will make a few brief comments though in anticipation of what we hope will be a much more in depth discussion this afternoon:
Tom--Using McGirr's book as inspiration is a great idea as I think that she picks up many of the themes that interest you. You might want to look through McGirr and see which figures or organizations mentioned have papers at the Hoover (or elsewhere in the Bay). Just keep in mind that people who worked exclusively in Orange County are as likely as not to have repositories of papers at UC Irvine, so you might find that you're hitting on people, organizations, campaigns, lobbies etc. that had more of a state-wide influence, rather than a focus on one particular county.
Alice--I'm glad you've been thinking of strikes that might fit your project, but Homestead might be a tough one as far as finding primary source material in the area. I'd talk with a librarian at Green and search the OAC asap. It's probably going to be easier though if you start looking around to see if there are any local strikes that might be interesting to you, since then you could more easily use the SF Public Library's archives. Maybe a strike with Pinkerton involvement? Have you thought also about doing a project that's more focused on Pinkerton activity in San Francisco?
Andrea--The idea of using comedy is a great idea though you're right to think that the major problem might be in finding archival material on black comedy or comedians. That said, the Oakland African American Museum and Library might have a great deal of material. I also wonder if there isn't another good media collection around that you might use. You'll have to do some research in to media collections in the area that have materials related to black comedy.
Chris--Since you're topic is already quite refined, I'll just reemphasize that I hope you visit the Chinese American Historical Society as soon as possible and get started. Even if you don't go in the next few days, you should start to contact the archivists today or tomorrow so that they can start to help you identify materials. Also, to follow up on our discussion Tuesday, we had mentioned trying to find permits and other records for Chinese (owned) restaurants in Palo Alto. I don't know if you've found other types of businesses, but while you're there, you should make sure to do a broader search so that you don't miss other businesses like laundries etc.
Sylvie--I noticed that you did not mention Catholicism in your post. Even though you might have to drop it in the final paper, there's a good possibility that you will be able to find a great deal of information on the subject through papers at the Hoover (other than WFB's). Also, do you know where William Buckley Sr.'s papers are? I'd bet the answer is Yale, but it might be interesting to look at family papers if they're around.
Also, remember that even though you will have a chance to discuss topics with each other in class, we encourage you to comment on the blog. Last week we had some great feedback coming in on most of the posts, and I hope you'll continue to engage with your colleagues through the medium of the blog.
Tom--Using McGirr's book as inspiration is a great idea as I think that she picks up many of the themes that interest you. You might want to look through McGirr and see which figures or organizations mentioned have papers at the Hoover (or elsewhere in the Bay). Just keep in mind that people who worked exclusively in Orange County are as likely as not to have repositories of papers at UC Irvine, so you might find that you're hitting on people, organizations, campaigns, lobbies etc. that had more of a state-wide influence, rather than a focus on one particular county.
Alice--I'm glad you've been thinking of strikes that might fit your project, but Homestead might be a tough one as far as finding primary source material in the area. I'd talk with a librarian at Green and search the OAC asap. It's probably going to be easier though if you start looking around to see if there are any local strikes that might be interesting to you, since then you could more easily use the SF Public Library's archives. Maybe a strike with Pinkerton involvement? Have you thought also about doing a project that's more focused on Pinkerton activity in San Francisco?
Andrea--The idea of using comedy is a great idea though you're right to think that the major problem might be in finding archival material on black comedy or comedians. That said, the Oakland African American Museum and Library might have a great deal of material. I also wonder if there isn't another good media collection around that you might use. You'll have to do some research in to media collections in the area that have materials related to black comedy.
Chris--Since you're topic is already quite refined, I'll just reemphasize that I hope you visit the Chinese American Historical Society as soon as possible and get started. Even if you don't go in the next few days, you should start to contact the archivists today or tomorrow so that they can start to help you identify materials. Also, to follow up on our discussion Tuesday, we had mentioned trying to find permits and other records for Chinese (owned) restaurants in Palo Alto. I don't know if you've found other types of businesses, but while you're there, you should make sure to do a broader search so that you don't miss other businesses like laundries etc.
Sylvie--I noticed that you did not mention Catholicism in your post. Even though you might have to drop it in the final paper, there's a good possibility that you will be able to find a great deal of information on the subject through papers at the Hoover (other than WFB's). Also, do you know where William Buckley Sr.'s papers are? I'd bet the answer is Yale, but it might be interesting to look at family papers if they're around.
Also, remember that even though you will have a chance to discuss topics with each other in class, we encourage you to comment on the blog. Last week we had some great feedback coming in on most of the posts, and I hope you'll continue to engage with your colleagues through the medium of the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)