In
reading Dang, Ocklemann, and Higginbotham’s pieces, I gathered a lot that I
believe that I can apply to my long paper this quarter. Higginbotham strong and
incredibly complex argument stuck out to me the most in the ‘Metalanguage of
Race’ piece. Her argument possesses a thesis, historical context, and a
rhetoric that seems like a call to action. Amazingly so, each of the moving
pieces are clear and concise. In her paper, Higginbotham states that the
narrowness of mainstream feminism (implicitly ‘white feminism’) is ironic
because the equality and strategies imposed in the movement have stood central
to the black quest for equality. Furthermore, feminist scholars must do more to
reject the current position of feminism and bring race more into the analyses
of power. While her words are complex, Higginbotham’s thought process and
argument ring very clear.
Higginbotham
continues her introduction by laying out three clear stages of action: define
the segments of race, gender, and sexuality; expose the role of race by
highlighting its power in other power dynamics; and recognize race as a vehicle
for dialogue around power relations. These
three, clearly defined stages gave me a road map to follow for the rest of her
paper while also not “spoiling” the contents of the rest of the paper: it gave
me a structure but retained by want to keep reading.
The
final parts of Higginbotham’s paper that I found really great were the clear
definitions and context for topics, as Higginbotham perceives them. For
example, the entire section “Defining Race” provides a lot of legwork to align
my understanding of defining race to Higginbotham’s thus making the rest of her
argument clearer. Additionally, Higginbotham shines light on both sides of many
arguments to help illuminate the complexities of the issues she is bringing up.
For example, her discussion of the drug problem as something that is projected
as an issue in lower-class, black life and involves drug dealers while in fact
there is a hole other side of big business moguls and the simple economic
supply chain.
Like
Higginbotham, Ocklemann did a lot to try and illustrate the complex issue of
perception, only her paper was involving flappers and the perception of women
in the 1920’s rather than race and feminism. Ocklemann’s general argument was:
the flapper was the embodiment of the “modern woman” as she was given new
opportunities and freedoms (namely sexual freedoms). Yet, the different
portrayals of the flapper in media show the lack of a unified perception of the
flapper and thus, the “modern woman.”
There
were a ton of things in this paper that I found very successful. First and
foremost, I loved the topic and sources. The perception of flappers is
something I have found very interested and have been incredibly confused about
since first learning about them in middle school. The intrigue of the subject
was utilized very well. I thought that opening with the exploration of one
person’s life and role in the time period was a great hook while also being
very informative. Additionally, I thought the connections made to the modern
day perception of women and sexuality (both implied and explicit) were a great
way to make the historical paper feel more relevant, especially since the major
sources being analyzed were all older ads, stories, and films; it brought
relevance to the piece.
I
think that using magazine ads, film, and fiction was a very successful way to
show the various impressions people at the time had of flappers and, more
generally, the contradictory attitudes towards women. Futhermore, Ocklemann did
a great job of supporting these media sources with concrete examples and
definitions of terms like “modesty” and “flapper.” In the area of improvements,
there wasn’t much that I found. My biggest improvement would be to “shorten”
the road map Ocklemann provides at the beginning of the paper. Whereas
Higginbotham explained where her paper was going very succinctly and without
“ruining” what was to come, I thought Ocklemann spent to much time on the
section and gave me a bit too much information about what was to be included in
the paper. I wasn’t as keen to keep reading her piece because of that. However,
because her topic was so cool, I obviously wanted to keep reading.
Like
Ocklemann, I thought Dang had a great hook in the opening. Opening with a
powerful quote was a very strong beginning to the paper that not only helped
set the tone but also was informative to what the rest of the paper was to be
about. I thought Dang’s central argument was Turner’s shift in rhetoric from the
war period to the post war period mirrored the shifting environment in the post
war period; both shifts illustrated that the Civil War had not brought about
significant change, which in turn led to the rise in the Emigration Movement. Because
of this argument including a change in rhetoric, I thought Dang did a great job
in juxtaposing both private and public writings and speeches from Turner from
both these periods and explicitly stating the differences. I especially liked
the use of the letters as a primary source. Since letters are written typically
for a private space, they can be more accurate in depicting a person’s beliefs.
It was a great strategy to support Dang’s argument about Turner’s shift in
rhetoric.
I
also thought that Dang did a great job providing historical context throughout
the piece rather than in just one section. Since the Emigration Movement is something
I don't know much about, it was nice that she brought up historically relevant
context at the moment I felt like I needed it rather than front loading the
essay with it. I also thought Dang’s inclusion of Turner’s multiple
perspectives on Emigration was very important and, for me, further legitimized
Dang as a historian. She included Turner’s beliefs on various actors ranging
from the US government, southerners, and African Americans and highlighted his
accusation of blacks as passive. I don’t have much to say on the improvement of
Dang’s paper except that at times I found it a bit harder to follow and less “shocking”
than Ocklemann’s piece but that could also be due to the fact that I am more
familiar with the “modern woman” and 1920’s period than I am with Turner and
the post Civil War period.
No comments:
Post a Comment