Bianca Dang's Paper
Dang’s paper is tracing the
evolution of the emigration movement in America by looking at the life and work
of Henry McNeal Turner.
Dang does a very good job of noting
general historical events in reference to Turner’s life. She using big
historical marking stones (the Civil War, the election of President Hayes) to
situate us in time and to explain Turner’s reaction to them. Turner is, for
this reason, a good figure to examine for this topic because the evolution of
his opinions neatly parallels the historical events that accompany those
changes.
Dang makes great use of primary
source documents. In particular, it is very interesting to read and see long
excerpts from Turner’s speeches or writings – it gives us a great insight into
who he was and how he thought. She also does a good job of explaining what
those quotes meant at the time—with commentary such as “this would have been
very bold for an African American man to say” or “this was controversial at the
time”.
Dang also does a really good job
showing how Turner interacted with other famous figures at the time, for
example Frederick Douglass—how Turner initially supported him but then became
more loyal towards the policy of emigration.
Two things I wish Dang would have
included was more of a narrative arc—I found myself curious about the emotional
or personal component that went along with Turner’s change in opinions. I also
wish that she had spent a little more time dwelling on the idea of
emigration—what that actually meant, in practice and theoretically, who
supported it and more of the history of the American Colonization Society.
This is a fantastic paper which
examines the different interpretations and history of the “flapper”, the
perennial modern woman. Ockelmann decides to look in depth at four “case
studies” (two films, a short story and the history of sanitary pad
advertisement) in order to examine the idea of a flapper. She provides great
analysis of how the evolution of the construct related to the tension between
the modest woman and the modern one.
Her introduction is fantastic,
explaining to us the in depth life of one of the real live flappers. The story
is also a great way to set up her entire thesis, the tension between modernity
and modesty. Furthermore, her introduction does a great job explaining clearly
what the two concepts are and their historical roots in society (i.e. the
Victorian conception of the modest woman).
Ockelmann’s writing style is
superb. She is incredibly clear and engaging, providing us with enough imagery
and description while also providing excellent analyses. Her decision to focus
in depth on four case studies is also a fantastic way to format the paper. She
is able to examine at great length one character – making us identify deeply
with their story – and provide a more general analysis of the social trends
each source reflected. Her writing style also seamlessly moves from this
description to analysis, so the reader is never bored.
Finally, Ockelmann does a great job
using other historians work to contextualize the primary sources she has
chosen. Although her own analysis is the shining star of the paper, she cites
other historians to explain more general trends: for example, while Ockelmann
explains the movie “Good Little Bad Girl”, she cites another historian who
comments on the general trends of films at the time.
Overall, a
fantastic paper I really enjoyed reading.
Higginbotham’s thesis is that too
often race is not taken into account in feminist literature. Her basic argument
is that what it meant to be a woman, and the various expectations and pressures
surrounding that idea, varied deeply depending on race. Gender power dynamics
is greatly influenced by racial identity and she believes other scholars have
not put enough emphasis on this fact.
In contrast to the first two papers,
which mention other scholars only peripherally, Higginbotham immediately puts
herself in the context of an academic discussions. She says “They all think
this” but “I think this”. She is very critical of feminist analyses which do
not include race as one of the factors that effects power dynamics and she says
so.
Throughout the piece, she often
incorporates other’s opinions into her paper in order to refute them. For
example, she calls out Elizabeth Spelman (among others) for arguing that "In
other words, the womanness underneath the black woman's skin is a white woman's
and deep down inside the Latina woman is an Anglo woman waiting to burst
through." It is clear from the context of her paper that she includes this
quote in order to refute it, not to illustrate her own opinion.
Throughout the paper, Higginbotham
never uses other historians’ words or analyses to explain her own opinion. She
instead provides original historical examples from which she draws conclusions
about the relationship between race and gender.
However, she does use quotes from
other scholars for two purposes. The first is if she needs to define a term in
her paper, and feels a quote from someone else would help to explain the
concept. The second is to situate herself within the literature, explaining if
what she thinks or says is controversial among other scholars.
Overall, I
think it was a very good piece critiquing our conception of the relationship
between race and gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment