Responses

            In “African American Women’s History and the Metalanguage of Race,” Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham calls into question understandings of race, gender, and class that separate them as three separate issues rather than engaging with their intersections. She does this by putting different scholars in conversation with one another in order to make arguments that class and gender cannot be examined without noting the importance of race in either case.

            She argues that feminist scholars need to “accept the challenge to bring race more prominently into their analyses of power.” For black women, gender is racialized and race is gendered. Scholars who fail to address the two together erase people who exist on the intersections of race and gender oppression. She uses both historic and modern evidence to support her argument that the metalanguage of race is present n discussions of gender. One example she uses is the connection between race and gender in the context of slavery. Slave women were subject to sexual violence that was legal due to their gender and race. Ignoring the reality of gender and race would be ignoring the impact that racialized, gendered sexual violence impacts black women.

            She also argues that class must also be examined through the metalanguage of race. Again, she challenges scholars who study social class to recognize the way that class interacts with race. Her concept of race as a “metalanguage” that racializes the way people speak and interact with class and gender is a useful tool to examine those issues.

In her paper, Dang makes excellent use of primary sources to trace the life and consciousness of Henry Turner, from his early optimism to his later radicalism. I appreciate that throughout the paper, she sticks to her original thesis, but does not shy away from complicating it with layers of nuance. Overall, she spins a compelling tale of change-over-time, and how Turner’s personal beliefs transformed in reaction to different stages of history.

            Dang is highly successful at telling a story that is cohesive yet full of nuance. For instance, in the first part of her paper, she writes about Turner’s early optimism during the Civil War. Turner is hopeful that due to African Americans’ crucial role in the War, there is hope for greater equality in the future. However, she adds a layer complexity to her own argument by adding that Turner still harbored suspicions of whites and remained critical of their exploitation and oppression of black people. She could have excluded that information in order to really contrast Turner’s early positions with his later positions; instead she chose to reveal that Turner had complex feelings towards whites from the very beginning, but he was also cautiously optimistic about the future for black people.

            Dang’s use of primary sources is very impressive. She not only includes direct quotations from Turner to support her argument, but she also draws inferences from her primary sources to offer possible interpretations of the sources. Her use of Turners personal letters allows her to directly trace the evolution of Turners consciousness, and they serve as great evidence for her argument. She goes farther than just quoting Turner, and actively interprets his quotes in their historical context, explaining what was happening in American history at the time that Turner said or wrote something. Overall, her connections between Turner’s life and consciousness and his historical context is effective.

            Like Dang, Ocklemann opens with a specific case, but unlike Dang, she uses it as an introduction to a broader thesis rather than focus the essay on an individual. Her examination of Clara Bow leads into an examination of Flappers as a symbol of modernity, which ultimately leads into an examination of the tension between modernity and modesty for women during the 1920s. Her discussion of Flappers connects well with her discussion of this tension, and her interpretation of primary sources, such as news ads and films, support her argument well. However, I think her discussion of sanitary pads, while supporting her arguments, detracted from the emphasis and could possibly have been a separate paper on advertising and the struggle between modernity and modesty.

            Using ads is an effective way to demonstrate the dominant ideals that women were held to during the 1920s. Because advertising is so influential and pervasive, it is also reflective of the norms and values imposed on women at the time. The images from women’s magazines are excellent primary sources and serve to support her argument effectively.

            However, I think her use of the feminine hygiene ads seems like a separate paper with a similar argument. While it definitely supports her thesis about the tension between modernity and modesty, it also seems to take away focus from the discussion on Flappers. Since she begins her essay with the argument, “the sources explored in this paper engage with the flapper as a source through which to view this tension,” I think having articles that were more directly about Flappers would have made the essay more cohesive. The discussion on sanitary pads seems to break up an otherwise cohesive essay, in which she opens with talking about Flappers, moves to feminine hygiene, and then returns to the discussion of the movie. I think there is actually potential for two separate papers. While very compelling and imaginative, this essay seems less focused than Dang’s argument.