Week 3 Reading Response - Jasmine Guillory

Dang

Bianca Dang’s “Critical of Compromise: Henry McNeal Turner and the Rise of the Emigration Movement in Post-Civil War America” is a well organized analysis of Turner’s evolving view on the viability of an American society based on equality and justice. She argues that as the United States continued to uphold racist institutions and practices, the hope that Turner originally felt transformed into bitterness and frustration, with the ultimate consequence being his decision to promote African-American emigrationism over assimilation into the existing system. One of her paper’s strengths is the clarity of her argument; she lays out a chronological framework consisting of three distinct phases for the way in which Turner’s views changed over time, then actually divides her paper into three matching sections. This makes her train of thought quite easy to follow, which in turn allows the reader to focus on the points she makes rather than having to spend time figuring out what the argument is or where it is going.

Some writers avoid clearly stating their intentions because they feel that doing so is simplistic or a stylistic faux pas - there is a widespread perception that if something seems complicated and confusing, then it must be intelligent. Reading essays like Dang’s is a helpful reminder that giving one’s readers information in a clear manner does not eliminate any of the nuance or complexity of one’s writing. In fact, it enhances it. Not only does the organization of Dang’s essay help readers, but I would imagine that it was immensely useful during the research process as well. If after her initial research phase she knew what the main categories of her research would be, then it was probably a lot easier to do the more in depth research that came next. I often find myself amassing large amounts of information and then formulating it into an argument afterward, so I hope to stay organized throughout the course of the writing process for this class so that I can make sure that I am maximizing the amount of time I spend on research and writing that will be part of my final product.

Ockelmann

Like Dang’s piece, Ockelmann’s “‘Don’t Fuss Mother, This Isn’t So Fast’: Flappers and the Struggle Between Modernity and Modesty” lays out a helpful roadmap that explains the sections she will use to make her argument that there was an evolving tension between modernity and modesty in the 1920s. This tactic is again successful in improving the reader’s experience with the essay. That said, I wish that the transitions between the sections had flowed a little bit more. The somewhat jarring nature of the transitions made it feel like each section was wholly different than the others, rather than seeming like a continuous narrative that included multiple related examples.

I really enjoyed the fact that Ockelmann began her essay with an anecdote that both supports her point and draws the reader in. The story about Clara Bow is a much more reader-friendly opening than a basic introduction that dives right into a thesis. I immediately wanted to read more, and Ockelmann delivered in the rest of the essay with more entertaining, relevant examples that kept me interested for the entirety of the piece. I hope to discover an anecdote that will serve a similar purpose for my final essay.

Ockelmann’s use of primary sources also brings a lot to her essay. The amount of research she did on sanitary pad advertisements is impressive - she mentions that she has examined more than 60 ads. Like the primary source quotes in Dang’s piece, the quotes that Ockelmann used were directly relevant and added a layer of interest to the piece because they allowed us to compare the sentiments with ones from analogous sources today (social justice activists and more modern advertisements, respectively). Ockelmann used fewer secondary sources than Dang, probably because Dang’s essay relied on historical context to explain the shift in Turner’s political outlook, while in Ockelmann’s  piece, the primary sources are what provide the context.

Higginbotham:

Higginbotham’s piece is an enlightened indictment of the common failure to take intersectionality into account in feminist literature. She also takes black intellectuals to task for generalizing among African-Americans without regard to gender or class. Both of these distinctions are of the utmost importance. As a black woman, the way that historians tend to split demographics into allegedly distinct categories like “women” and “blacks” is extremely frustrating for me, as it implies that the two terms are mutually exclusive. Higginbotham’s piece is a well argued, illuminating look into the importance of analyzing various facets of one’s identity in conjunction with each other, rather than in isolation.

She does a lot of things successfully in this essay, but there were two strategies in particular that I took note of. The first one was more minor; I liked that Higginbotham immediately announced her own identity at the beginning of her essay because it enhanced my ability to understand her voice and gave legitimacy to her opinions about race and feminism. Secondly, she does a great job bringing in the work of other historians. She avoids repeating research that has already been done in favor of bringing in voices like Henry Louis Gates or Elizabeth Spelman to supplement her argument. For example, rather than conduct an entire section of research into the treatment of black families who tried to conform to the white norm of a working husband and a housewife, Higginbotham turns to the research of Jacqueline Jones. By avoiding redundancy, Higginbotham is able to focus more of her attention on constructing her more original main argument.