Natasha Mmonatau Week 8 Response/Source

Jasmine Primary Source + Response Paper

My primary source is available here. Please read page 10, starting at "This theological perspective of marriage has been presented in order to show..." through the first paragraph of page 12.

One of the main focuses of my paper will be the ways in which religion affected peoples' views toward interracial marriage, with my argument being that overall, it was a progressive force. My primary source for this week is an amicus curiae brief filed by 16 Roman Catholic bishops, archbishops, and apostolic administrators, as well as two national Catholic organizations. In this brief, they argue that because marriage is a religious act, the government's interference through anti-miscegenation laws is unconstitutional. This is a prime example both of the positive effect that religious sentiments had on some peoples' attitudes toward the Lovings and interracial marriage, and of religious individuals who felt strongly enough about this issue to take action on behalf of mixed race couples. Further along in the brief, there's a section about how interracial marriages are not inherently dangerous to children; instead, the problems that some interracial families face are due to external prejudice. This will tie in with a couple of the newspaper articles I found that also argue that there is no scientific basis for antimiscegenation laws.

I find the topic matter of Jill Lepore’s essay much more compelling and relatable if I think of her argument in terms of groups rather than individuals. In general, I have not written essays focused primarily on the experiences of a single person or family; when individuals are highly relevant, such as Mildred and Richard Loving in my current essay, I prefer to prioritize the events and ideas related to them rather than their own lives. I suppose this is somewhat in line with Lepore’s views about microhistorians, as she believes that “even when [microhistorians] study a single person’s life, they are keen to evoke a period,  a mentalité, a problem” (132). The difference, though, is that I try to include only as much information about the person’s life as is necessary rather than providing information and then drawing conclusions about society. Even so, I think a lot of her arguments apply more to the experience I have when writing about certain demographic groups, particularly those who are marginalized.

Lepore’s third proposition is that microhistorians “tend to betray people who have left abundant records in order to resurrect those who did not,” which is certainly something that I regularly do (141). In writing about women or racial minorities, I often use documents left by men and white women to try to decry the actions of the powerful and humanize the oppressed. The difference is that I feel little to no guilt about what might be considered a “betrayal” - the only emotional dilemma I face is to what extent I should forgive people who did awful things for being products of their times. Sometimes I think that the standard to which I should compare people should be the most enlightened person from that time, with the logic that if that person could escape the prejudice of the time, then my subject should have been able to as well. Other times, I try to be more realistic in judging people by the average individual from their time instead. In any case, my problem is often that I skip the infatuation phase of researching powerful people and instead demonize them a little more than is necessary because I care too much about the marginalized groups who suffered from that person’s actions.

Alina Primary Source

The reasons why sterilization would allow otherwise fit people to be released back into society was a bit murky at times. Popenoe dictated them that “More clearly than ever, the facts stood out: the multiplication of the feebleminded, so much more rapid than that of the most intelligent and best educated people in the community; the destructive results of parenthood in families handicapped by mental disease; the effectiveness of sterilization, from all points of view, in meeting the problems presented by this facts.” They were divided up into societal and personal arguments.

On the one hand, Popenoe argued, sterilization would prevent mentally unfit people from reproducing and spreading on bad genes. Popenoe quotes a famous eugenist in his phamplet who said that “if all the known feebleminded in such a population as that under consideration could be sterilized for one completely generation, the amount of known feeblemindedness in the next generation would probably be reduced by 36%”. But the forced sterilization program was, even by the eugenicists flawed standards of hereditary, not reaching enough feebleminded people to really remove all of the “bad” genes from society. So the social benefits would probably just reduce the prevalence of certain genes or at least reduce the population of the mentally unfit. The high birth rates, combined with lower birthrates for upper-middle class white people, were particularly alarming to the Progressives. As Popenoe says, “What kind of families are producing the feebleminded who have been sterilized in California? The mean size was five living children. Statistical calculations indicate that this stock is multiplying nearly twice as fast as is the native-white population of the state in general.” 

The other argument is that sterilization would be a benefit to the individual. Popenoe claims that many patients or relatives of patients requested the sterilization procedure because they felt it would be better for them. However, it is difficult to substantiate this claim. Popenoe claims that “only one out of every seven of the sterilized patients who could be reached raised any objection to the operation, and in no instance was this objection raised on rational grounds.” It is unclear what “rational grounds” means from the phamplet, but one could probably assume that any objection that was not based on eugenic or hereditary reasons — for example, consent, or the desire to have a child whether or not the state deemed it mentally unfit—were probably discounted as irrational. Indeed, Popenoe seems to present the standard narrative of the cause of feeblemindedness: 

“An imbecile may be able to support himself after a fashion by unskilled labor. He and his wife may even do fairly well financially because the wife can likewise earn something, by laundering or housework for instance. While the couple will not be very prosperous, not very stable or secure, they may get along

With the birth of a child, this situation is changed. The wife stops earning yet the family must spend more money. Desertion is a common sequel. Every social worker can cite families of this sort in which the husband is perhaps for years only a periodic visitor. Each visit, however, is followed by a pregnancy, the evidence of which starts the husband once more on his travels.

This whole history can be terminated at any point by sterilization. It is hard to believe that anyone concerned would be the loser by an early termination.” 

It is not entirely clear whether this anecdote was based on empirical evidence. However, it certainly highlights the view of forced sterilization advocates about the causes of poverty. Mentally deficient people were unfit for parenthood and therefore did not deserve to have it. This was happening in tandem with the decline in birth rates among educated white people. 

Rachel - Week 8 Response/Primary Source

Lepore Response:
Although I am not writing about a person, I initially thought I wasn't going to gain very much from reading Lepore's essay. However, I found a lot of what she said to be very relatable to my piece. I especially connected with her discussion of biography versus microhistory on page 133. Lepore states: "...however singular a person's life may be, the value of examining it lies not in its uniqueness, but in its exemplariness, in how that individual's life serves as an allegory for broader issues affecting the culture as a whole." While I am not writing about a single stewardess but rather the stewardess as a historical group (as well as highlighting a few various stewardesses), I found this passage really struck a chord for my piece. Although every stewardess has a unique story about why she joined this exciting new profession as well as possesses her own undoubtably fascinating stories of her travels and the passengers she met, my focus is not on the life of the stewardess but rather how the stewardess can serve as an example of the cultural shifts (or lack there of) brought on by the Cold War and furthered by explicit State Department action.

I thought the "Love and Betrayal" section of Lepore's essay the most relatable to my usual issues with writing but not for this particular piece. I have found that I am removed enough in time and do not have a personal stake in the subject matter that I am writing about. Usually I definitely fall in love with my subject if writing about one person (my worst case was in a paper about Abigail Adams and how much cooler she was than her husband...).

Primary Source: 
Small Town, USA (U.S. Information Service/Pathescope Company of America/Eurovision, 1957 -sponsored documentary)

youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5oM6CuuZUY

The documentary follow families in Amamosa, Iowa. The US Government would make many documentaries like this as a way to promote the American Way of life during the Cold War. It was intended for foreign audiences. It highlights American iconic images such as independence day fireworks, churches and gardens, small town America main street, and picturesque farms and country sides. I am going to use this source as an example of the how the US Government was directly handling the creation and projection of American ideals through culture.

Patrick Response for Week 8

          I found Lepore’s discussion on the nature of presenting the individual histories of particular individuals to be very interesting, partially because that is part of my paper’s goal. The distinction between “microhistory” and the necessarily opposite “macrohistory” provides us with a language in which we can discuss the different goals that a particular historical work might have. A macrohistorical work may ignore the details of daily life in the 18^th century in order to make an argument as to the causes of the Seven Years’ War, while a microhistorical work might be concerned with examining the motivations behind several members of the Iroquois Confederacy in fighting with the British.

It seems to me that microhistory is less concerned with the causes and effects of certain historical events but rather focuses on an individual in order to give its reader a contextual understanding of what that person’s life was like, which could be a means of understanding life in that time period in general. This analysis of the different goals of the two histories reinforced my understanding that historical writing that may seem “small” is still inherently valuable like historical writing that claims to explain the fall of an empire or the start of a war. My paper focuses on several individuals, and I hope that in writing it I will be able to give my readers an impression of what multiple experiences of American Jews in the South during the Civil War could have been like. My goal is to show several microhistories, and although my paper will not be making arguments as to why events during the war turned out as they did, I plan to show that the historical analysis of specific people can provide a greatly important understanding of one experience of 19^th century life.

Patrick Source for Week 8

         Clara Solomon was a young woman living in New Orleans during the Civil War, and her diary provides us access to the thoughts and experiences of average people in a confederate city that was occupied by the Union only a few years into the war. This excerpt from her diary during the occupation, with the remarks in brackets being editors’ notes clarifying her abbreviations and references, shows her resistance to the Union occupation under General Butler, whom she refers to as “unprincipled” and a “Wretch.” In particular, she does not lose her faith in the ability of the Confederacy to prevail over the “d—m wretches,” expressing the fact that, in wartime, she identifies first and foremost as a Confederate woman, similarly to Phoebe Pember. 



Clara Solomon's Diary, May 17th 1862


6 ¾ A.M. I have been up for some time, & in obedience to A.'s [my elder sister Alice's] orders, the Paper was brought to her, & the general orders No.29 & 30 [issued by Union Major General Benjamin Butler] were so unexpected & startling that they completely unnerved me, & I was unable to continue my toilette. I was not quite right in saying that they were unexpected for do we place any reliance on the word of that unprincipled Butler? 

Order No.29, "On the 27th day of May, all circulation of or trade in Con. [Confederate] notes & bills will cease within this department, & all sales or transfers made on that day will be void, & the property confiscated to the U.S."!! Now, how terrible a blow is this. The greater part of the money now in circulation is the Con. notes, & the loss to many will be enormous. None, I presume, will now be received in payment & what substitute are we to have. The "Wretch" [Butler] said in his proclamation that he would allow them as a legal tender, & see how he has violated his word. I have no doubt but it will produce a great commotion in the city & why shouldn't it, when it will involve the ruin of thousands. 

General order No.30. The N.O. Delta [New Orleans Delta newspaper] having published in today's issue, an article discussing the cotton question in a manner which violates the terms of the Proclamation, from these headquarters, the office of that paper the office of that paper will be taken possession of & its business conducted under direction of the U.S. authorities…. The continuation of the order is, "The N.O. Bee, having published an elaborate though covert article in favor of the burning of the cotton & the mob, is hereby suppressed. No publication of any kind will issue from that paper until further orders"….

The taking of this city & the burning of our cotton will be the making of our Confederacy, for it will show the foreign nations that we are in earnest & willing to make any sacrifices, that we are a brave determined people imbued with the same spirit as were those 13 little colonies who triumphed over the greatest nation on earth. There were gloomier days than this during the Revolution, for says a London paper, "the capture of Charleston or N.O. itself would, if the Southerners intend to hold out, be but the commencement of the war. Let it be remembered that we took all these cities & Boston & N.Y besides during the war of Independence. We had nothing to conquer but the Atlantic coast & we found after a fair trial that it was impossible. It was not so much the volunteers as the country which beat us. We had a much more desperate battle & a much more glorious success at Bunker Hill, than the Fed. had at Fort Donelson but it had little value towards the conquest of Massachusetts". This seems as though they were decidedly in our favor…. 

.....

When I arrived in School [today], I noticed an unusual stir & commotion & when I inquired the cause, there was some astonishment expressed that I had not heard the news, the General order, No.28. I was informed of it & when Miss B. came she read it. "Be silent that you may hear. As the soldiers of the U.S. have been subject to insults offered to them by the women (calling themselves ladies) of N.O., I hereby order that should any female treat with contempt, or insult in word, gesture or movement any officer & private under my command, she shall be liable to be treated as a woman of the town, plying her avocation". 

…I cannot express to you the indignation this thing awakened, my feelings are akin to a lady, who speaking of the subject, said "I cannot tell you how I feel or what I think". I hear that the men were perfectly exasperated for you know the insult offered to us is also to them. The cowardly wretches! to notice the insults of ladies! But the news will get abroad & then we shall be praised for our actions. They will see the spirit of our women, aged, even children, but they dare not notice their insults. And how did they expect to be treated. Can a woman, a Southern woman, come in contact with one of them & allow her countenance to retain its wonted composure. Will not the scornful feelings in our hearts there find utterance. They may control our actions, but looks, they never can. 

Lauren Lockett, Week 8

Response to "Historians Who Love Too Much"

I found Jill Lepore’s “Historians Who Love Too Much” to be a refreshing take on historical writing that challenged me to think more critically about how I’m utilizing my own primary sources and nature of the story that I intend to tell. Making important distinctions between the arts of microhistory and biography, Lepore opened my eyes to fascinating questions of attachment and historical storytelling that I had not previously considered.

I suppose if Lepore were to judge my own intentions for my paper, she would consider it to be a microhistory, as I am focusing on the life of a professional African-American woman in the early to mid-twentieth century to better understand the roles and burdens of these women within their own culture and wider American society. Although I am probably not personally in danger of it in this ten-week period, the question of what happens when a historian becomes too attached to his or her subject fascinated me. As I write about Black professional women, one of which I aspire to be one day, who were facing harsh discrimination on account of both their race and gender at the time, I find it difficult not to admire these subjects. In many ways, they set the precedence for roles, of Black female professional motherhood, that I may very well fall into one day. In this way, much as Lepore’s fourth proposition alludes to, I unexpectedly find myself as a character in my own writing.

I also appreciated her affirmation of “ordinary” subjects who may have not been in the spotlight during their own lifetimes, and thus left behind less artifacts than the historian may desire. Because I researched women who were so rare in their era, writing a history that was selective, and even somewhat elitist, rather one with inclusive and broadly representative characteristics was a major concern of mine in the writing process. However, Lepore’s writing reassured the value in fleshing out the importance of these “incompletely documented lives” in the wider contexts of culture and society. 

Primary Sources

This primary source helps to contextualize the way in which the Black community thought about women, particularly mothers. From this article, it is evident that Black women were asked and expected, even within their own communities, to bear a burden in shouldering their work, family and community responsibilities. This article also addresses some intersectionality of discrimination that black women face.

This is an excerpt of an oral history transcript by Lena Edwards, a Black female physician who married, had 5 children and practiced medicine in Texas during the Jim Crow Era. In this interview, she discusses the importance of her raising her children and her experiences with discrimination as both an African-American and a woman in twentieth century America. In this particular excerpt, she mentions feeling that through her own having and rearing successful children, she feels that she is positively contributing to the African-American race. I can use this and other parts of the interview to understand how Black women utilized their motherhood as a source of racial and societal empowerment.