Response to Jennifer Ockelmann’s article:

In her paper “Don't Fuss, Mother, This Isn't So Fast”:  Flappers and the Struggle Between Modernity and Modesty, Jennifer Ockelmann explores the tensions that arose alongside the conception of the “modern woman” in 1920’s America. Through her analysis of unique primary sources Ockelmann is able to tease out the nuanced representations of modern women during the flapper era. The paper starts with a rich anecdote filled introduction that clearly defines the thesis and narrows the focus of the paper to one that looks at the modern woman through the lens of the flapper. The second section continues the introduction by filling the reader in on important background information about popular culture in the 1920s and the creation of the concept of the modern woman. One element of the introductory sections that I really appreciated was the care Ockelmann took to define her terms, even those that may have seemed more obvious such as “modesty.” Defining certain words is a really effective way of ensuring that the reader and author are approaching the topic with the same understanding of commonly used terms throughout the paper.

  Ockelmann chose to split the paper into sections defined by the primary source with which it is concerned. This choice represents another way that Ockelmann guides the readers through her paper. While each section works towards illustrating that the flapper represents the struggle between modernity and modesty in 1920s popular culture, I think the connections among the primary sources could have been more clearly delineated by the inclusion of a conclusion section of the paper. Overall Ockelmann’s paper is extremely engaging as a result of her incredible storytelling and ability to eloquently intertwine primary analysis with the work of other historians. Response to 

Bianca Dang’s paper: 

In her paper Critical of Compromise: Henry McNeal Turner and the Rise of the Emigration Movement in Post-Civil War America, Bianca Dang argues that, while he is remembered by many African American leaders for his uncompromising views on African American emigration, Henry McNeal Turner’s rhetoric paints a more nuanced picture of his beliefs. By taking closely examining Turner’s speeches and letters, she is able to recognize and illustrate a fundamental shift in his thinking from his optimism of the War to the disillusionment towards the end of the Reconstruction period exemplified by his inflamed rhetoric. Dang seamlessly incorporates many different primary and secondary sources into her paper. She not only introduces them by providing historical context, but also uses them as a means to illuminate other contemporary historical events and attitudes. Her paper is also made stronger by the fact that she entertains possible counterarguments to her claims. This rhetorical choice helps to establish a more convincing and penetrating argument, because it shows that it stands up to critique. 

While Dang also chooses split her paper into sections, rather than using different primary source analyses to delineate each section, she deals with a certain time period in Turner’s emigration movement. This type of construction works really well with Dang’s topic, because there is a clear temporal and thematic arc to Turner’s the story and the each sections help to reinforce that fact. I really appreciated the fact that Dang decided to extend her analysis to more contemporary African-American leaders in order to show the way in which Turner’s writing has been interpreted throughout history. Not only does this provide another interesting additional layer, but it also helps reinforce Dang’s thesis that Turner’s rhetoric throughout history represents more than the “unyielding attitude towards African-American compromise” that he is known for today. 

Response to African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race:

        In her article African-American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race, Evelyn Higginbotham argues that due to the construction of race in America, black women historians have not traditionally engaged in the same gender driven discourse of their white feminist counterparts. By defining race, showing that gender is linked to this definition of race, and fleshing out the many ways in which race impacts identity (sexuality, class, etc.), she is able to prove that the white feminist discourse assumes a “false homogenizing of women.” By dividing the paper into thematically driven sections, Higginbotham supports her systematic approach to proving the thesis of her article. Unlike the other two student authors, Higginbotham’s argument is not defined by specific time constraints, as it seeks to evaluate a relationship (that of race and gender in traditional white-feminism) that has remained somewhat fixed across time. 

Higginbotham expertly places the work of other scholars, not just those of history but a breadth of disciplines, in conversation with one another through her own argument. She also borrows certain terms from other scholars, which helps to place her argument within the context of other scholarly work. One of the most effective and convincing ways in which Higginbotham stakes her claims is by discussing each major concept from many different scholarly viewpoints. For example, when defining race, she acknowledges the scientific chromosomal lens along with those of literary and historical analysis. In acknowledging and refuting other ways of looking at or explaining evidence, she garners her argument more credibility.