Valerie Matsumoto’s “Japanese Women during World War II”

Posted on by
Reply

I found Valerie Matsumoto’s article Japanese Women during World War II  to be both interesting and informative. The chronological structure allowed for easy reading that flowed logically from “Prewar Background,” the first section, to “Resettlement: College and Work,” detailing the lives of Japanese-American “Nisei” women in the later years of the war and post-war readjustment.  From the beginning of the essay, when Matsumoto states her aim, to the straightforward conclusion at the end, her ideas flowed logically and chronologically, a strategy that I found effective when discussing both wartime and its progressions, and the differences between generations. The clear cut-definitions of Nisei and Issei and the contrasts and comparisons between them allowed for easy understanding of the differences between generations and where those differences came from. I thought the way that Matsumoto described the general differences as stemming from both camp life and war life, as well as being a natural and normal part of growing up in a new generation, made sense and allowed the reader to understand not only what happened, but also why it happened.  Her varied perspectives, taken from Japanese-American women with different backgrounds and experiences both within the camp and outside it, allowed us to see the whole picture of Nisei women’s lives and their various possibilities. Additionally, the way that she detailed daily life in the camp was effective when coupled with ideas of changing values and how these impacted Japanese-American women. Overall, this article gave me a good overview of how internment and the war affected Japanese-Americans, and specifically how it affected second-generation Japanese-American women, who went to college, married for love, and found new and different roles outside of the home. When we think about this article in the context of today’s society, how might we compare what happened to the Japanese with what some politicians talk about today regarding different groups? How do people who have experienced cultural trauma on a large scale cope with it, and does this coping differ depending on the race, ethnic group, or social status of the traumatized? How might Japanese-American culture be different today if the internment hadn’t happened? To what extent did this shape what it means to be Japanese-American? I wonder, did these events reverberate within Japan? How would Japanese-Americans with relatives in Japan have reacted differently than those without or younger generations? Would they have reacted differently depending on family ties?

-Maggie Lindrooth

“Making Faces: The Cosmetics Industry and the Cultural Construction of Gender; 1890-1930” by Kathy Peiss (Critic)

Posted on by
Reply

“Making Faces: The Cosmetics Industry and the Cultural Construction of Gender; 1890-1930” by Kathy Peiss

This article explores the cosmetic culture and industry from 1890-1930.  Kathy Peiss splits her article into three distinct sections, the commercialization of cosmetics, the segmentation of the industry, and cultural constructions of gender, class, and race.

In the first section, she talks about there was not much commercialization of cosmetics to start, that “from the 1840s, family keepsakes and formularies offered recipes to soften and whiten skin, cure freckles, and remove unwanted hair”(343).  She explains that there were many increases and decreases when it came to the popularity of makeup.  In the nineteenth century people tended to stray from commercially sold cosmetics, “many working-class women refrained from makeup use, given religious beliefs, ethnic cultural traditions, concepts of respectability, and the cost of the products”(343).  Peiss then states that before and after World War I is when we start to see the increase of the industry.

In the next section, the segmentation of the industry is explored.  This section explores the advertising of the cosmetic industry and how they persuaded women to believe they needed cosmetics to be beautiful inside and out.  “It popularized the democratic idea that beauty could be achieved by all women if only they used the correct products and treatment”(345).  It also points out what advertising was used in attracting different types of people.  Specifically the differences between the African American cosmetic community and the White community are explored through the products and the way they are sold.

The last section talks about the different ways the cosmetic industry reacted to gender, class and race.  Peiss points out that a lot of America products were said to be made in Paris because it was thought that “cosmetic practices of Parisian women as examples American women should emulate”(354).  The use of different races in advertising is explored and how being “white” was the ultimate goal.

So the truth is being a critic of this article is very hard for me.  Out of all the things we read this semester this one was my favorite.  I thought the topic was very interesting and I think the way Kathy Peiss organized it made it very easy to follow along.  But, I am the critic so I found two main things that I did not enjoy about this article.

The first thing that I do not enjoy was even though Peiss was only looking at a short period of time she did a lot of jumping around in dates.  For example on page 347, the first paragraph is talking about 1915 through 1925.  Right after that in the next paragraph she explores events that took place in the 1910s, then next 1900, then 1872, then 1905.  This did not make it terribly hard to follow but I think if she just put it in chronological order it could have been more useful.

The other aspect of this article I thought could have used more work was the representation of other minorities, besides African Americans, and their use of cosmetics at this time.  I was happy that by the end of the article there was some representation of “American Indian, Egyptian, Turkish and Japanese women” but they were used as advertising mechanisms.   I wish that we could have learned what cosmetic products these people were using and what they wanted to achieve.

This article did leave me with some questions.  My obvious one is what cosmetic products did minorities use and how did they get them?  What exactly caused the increase in cosmetic use?  Peiss originally states how women thought of prostitutes using cosmetics, but what exactly got everyday women to start using them?  What caused people to just start thinking cosmetics could change them into better women?

-Blake Cohen

Sui Sin Far’s “The Inferior Woman” from Mrs. Spring Fragrance & Judy Jung’s “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown”

Posted on by
Reply

Sui Sin Far’s “The Inferior Woman” from Mrs. Spring Fragrance & Judy Jung’s “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown”

As historian Judy Jung discussed in her piece, “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown,” she discussed three different possible outcomes for women who left China and came to United States.  They either were tricked into prostitution in Chinatown, entered a marriage arranged by family and became a stay-at-home housewife, or had help from relatives in United States and had access to an education, yet still encountered discrimination for gender and race.  This is what happened to Wong Ah So, Law Shee Low, and Jane Kwong Lee, respectively.

However, things turned around for those who are forced into prostitution like Wong Ah So, as the Presbyterian Mission Home helped those women got out of prostitution, educated them, trained in the domestic arts and industrial skills, and indoctrinated them with Victorian moral values. For those stay-at-home housewives, in our case, Law Shee Low, after their children were older, they were able to begin to work in sewing factories and went to Chinese movies on Saturdays.

For the last case of the Chinese working women like Jane Kwong Lee, their race and gender have pretty much determined what kind of work they have accessed to, and thus limited their choice of work. As she was studying in college, she tutored Chinese adults and taught in a Chinese school. After she earned her bachelor’s degree, she married, had two children, and returned for her master’s degree, and dedicated herself to community service, worked as a coordinator of the Chinese YWCA, and as a journalist and translator for numerous Chinese newspapers.

In author Sui Sin Far’s “The Inferior Woman” from Mrs. Spring Fragrance, her story discussed the difference between an “inferior” woman and a “superior” woman, and such positions can chang due to a third party involvement. In her story, she described the inferior woman, Alice Winthrop “from childhood up, has been the sordid and demoralizing one of extreme poverty and ignorance. (Far 34-35)” On the other hand, the superior woman, Ethel Evebrook was a woman suffragist, and had an opposite background with the inferior woman hinted in the book. However, she praised Winthrop and women like her as “the pride and glory of America. (Far 35)” Close to the end of this chapter, the protagonist Mrs. Spring Fragrance changed Mrs. Carman’s position simply asked her “you are so good as to admire my husband because he is what the Americans call ‘a man who has made himself.’ Why then do you not admire the Inferior Woman who is a woman who has made herself? (Far 43)”

With the connection between Judy Jung’s “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown” and Sui Sin Far’s “The Inferior Woman” draws clear, as Ethel Evebrook states the inferior woman were the “woman who have been of service to others all their years… (Far 35-36)” and “in spite of every drawback, have raised themselves to the level of those who have had every advantage… (Far 35)” Woman such as Wong Ah So, before as a prostitute, or after she was rescued by the Presbyterian Mission House and married to a merchant in Idaho, though a bleak view, she has been of service to others, both to her clients and to her family, in which she offered her body in exchange of money needed for her family. After her rescue, she also raised to the level of those who had every advantage, namely married a merchant in Idaho. Though her life may not been a walk in the park, it reflect the somber reality of the lives of female immigrants from China.

-Kennie Lam

Judy Yung’s “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown” Critic

Posted on by
Reply

Critic: Judy Yung’s Unbound Feet

I have some knowledge and understanding of Chinese women’s experiences in San Francisco from Amy Tan’s fantastic book, The Joy Luck Club, which I read several years ago. Yung’s article bears some resemblance to Tan’s work in that is discusses the stories of several Chinese-American women. This is a topic that I’m interested in, however I did unfortunately have some qualms about this work. One glaring critique that I have of Yung’s work is that she begins discussion with immigrants who arrived in San Francisco in 1922 (Yung 337). Chinese immigration to the United States goes back to the late nineteenth century; I’m interested to know how this earlier time impacted the experience of later immigrants and the experience of these earlier female Chinese-American immigrants, something that Yung simply does not discuss at that point. It is sort of an awkward beginning that seems to actually begin at the middle of the story. That is really my largest complaint with Yung’s work is that she seems to present compelling information, which is provided with little context or background. This is particularly in the case of arranged marriages that ended up as “enslaving women in forced prostitution” (Yung 337). The only backstory we get are the personal stories of two women (Yung 340).

Yung mentions, but perhaps plays down the idea that female Chinese immigrants faced even more difficulties than other immigrants at the same time- they were not European and not white, putting an even greater burden on this group of women. Yung’s writing style is too back and forth for my liking, and shifts between times, making the article confusing at times.

Yung’s inclusion of Wong Ah So and Law Shee Low’s experiences after arriving in 1922 seem to put them on the better end of the timeline, after reforms had taken place. She cites the reform movement in 1898 and Sieh King King’s speech in 1902 (Yung 338). At the same time, the 1906 earthquake presented the opportunity to rebuild a nicer Chinatown, overall, bringing about improvements in the experiences of Chinese-American women living in San Francisco (Yung 339). Yung goes as far to state, “By 1929, immigrant women had made considerable progress toward freeing themselves of social restrictions and moving into the public arena. Footbinding was no longer practiced, prostitution had been eradicated, and a substantial number of women were working outside the home, educating themselves and their daughters and playing a more visible role in community affairs” (Yung 338). While a very triumphant acclamation of fact, it almost reads as if there isn’t really a need for this article then. I find it unlikely that at this time, all of these issues were resolved, and Chinese-American women in San Francisco had it easy after that point. If this is the case, then just under ten years after Wong Ah So and Law Shee Low came to the United States, everything was great? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. I am interested in what Judy Yung has to say; I just wish it were said differently. It could be that this article is simply awkward because it is excerpted from a book, and would perhaps be a better read in its entirety.

-William Kowalik

Yung, Judy. “Unbound Feet: From China to San Francisco’s Chinatown.” Women’s America: Refocusing the Past. Ed. Linda Kerber et al. 8th ed. New York: Oxford U P, 2016. 337-44. Print.

“A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present” by Kristin Celello

Posted on by
Reply

The article “A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present” by Kristin Celello discusses the idea of feminism and how it has evolved in both action as well as portrayal and response. Celello argues that there are at least two main waves of feminism and explains how each wave developed around the social issues of its time and how they have built upon one another since. Celello also argues that feminism is an entity in and of itself and that it develops based on cultural times and instances.

Celello’s argument is compelling and gives an interesting perspective on the idea of feminism not only in the twentieth century, but also today as well. She argues that feminism is not only studied by the actions of feminists, but also by the response and action of people who are “anti-feminists” or traditionalists. She discusses how modern historians of feminism now also study the idea of antifeminism and treat it as another aspect of the entire idea. This brings her to the questions of what both feminism and antifeminism are and how each school of thought defines one another in and of itself.

Celello’s main argument over her text is the idea that feminism has occurred in waves over the course of the twentieth century, and that that is how it is, and should be, studied. She claims that boths waves have shaped one another and defined how each generation of feminists has responded to society and the overall idea of feminism. In fact, Celello argues that at one point, the term “feminism” become associated with such a negative connotation, that modern feminists prefer to not even be associated with the term.

Celello also discusses the idea of how some believe that feminism died off after World War II and that there was not another resurgence for nearly a decade. Celello argues that there was never an actual lull in feminism, but that feminists went about pursuing their goals in less prominent and more subtle ways. She also argues that the “lull” can be blamed upon the narrow focus of studying feminism as well. Celello mentions in her article that many historians of feminism fail to study the movement outside of the “white middle- and upper-class women” and that this is where the perceived lull in activism comes from.[1] She argues that studying the working class and minority women of the twentieth century will actually show that these women were in fact still very much involved in their activism and actually campaigned for workplace gender equality and “protested (albeit unsuccessfully) their expulsion from jobs…at the end of the war”, where others argue that this was the beginnings of the lull in feminist activism.[2] She also states that “labor feminists” of the time were actually a crucial part of the so-called second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s.[3]

Celello’s paper helps to bring forward the idea of feminism and how it is viewed modernly. She also brings about the idea of a possible third wave of feminism that will develop in the twenty-first century at the end of her piece and discusses how this wave will ultimately be developed by feminism’s past. This brings about the question of what people consider to be feminism today, and if people even consider it needed or useful in modern times. Celello also discusses how there are divided schools of thought within the movement itself, and how there is not one single type of feminist. She mentions how there are both radical and liberal feminists and that both stand on different ideas of what they believe are the core aspects of feminism. Liberal feminists organize in groups and work with the “traditional political system”, while radical feminists look to overthrow that system and were the later result of separating ideas from the original liberal feminist movement.[4]

She further discusses how feminists are divided on ideas such as abortion as well. There are feminists who believe in the idea of pro-choice, and that women reserve the right to decide whether or not they want to be a mother. While some may not believe that feminists are pro-life, there are in fact activists who believe that being pro-choice undermines the idea of motherhood and that the ability to bear children is a key aspect of what it means to be a woman. Both ideas bring up important questions to ask about the idea of feminism, and whether or not “true” feminists believe in a woman’s right to choose or the responsibility of preserving a woman’s unique characteristic of childbearing.

Celello’s argument raises questions about not only the study of feminism, but the movement itself and how it is affected by its perception within the larger group of society. Her argument is important when discussing the idea of feminism, as it comes from multiple perspectives and how the movement itself has developed over time. It is an important article to study as we move into what she calls the “third wave” of feminism and how it will be perceived in the twenty-first century.

– Taylor McGoldrick

[1] Kristin Celello, “A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present,” in The Practice of U.S. Women’s History, ed. S. Jay Kleinberg, Eileen Boris, Vicki L. Ruiz (Rutgers University Press, 2007), 329-245.

[2] Celello, A New Century of Struggle, 334.

[3] Celello, A New Century of Struggle, 334.

[4] Celello, A New Century of Struggle, 336.

“A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present” by Kristin Celello (Critic)

Posted on by
Reply

“A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present”-Kristin Celello (Critic)

In Kristin Celello’s piece, “A New Century of Struggle: Feminism and Antifeminism in the United States, 1920-Present” she focuses on many different aspects of the feminist movement and how it has been historically recorded.  The author aids the reader by limiting her analysis to post-suffrage feminism and specifically highlights the surge of the movement between each wave.  While these are important and interesting topics, it is unclear throughout the essay where she explores the problems with answering the recurring question, “What was (and is) feminism?” There was a lot of information on the movement itself as well as the availability of historical data to researchers, but it never returned to this central question.

A personally intriguing topic brought up was the nature of race throughout the movement.  She succeeded in identifying the presence of black and hispanic women in the second wave while distinguishing between those within and without white women’s organizations. However, it would have been helpful to find out more about why any progressive movement would have had integration issues.  The author specifically points out the split between white socialist feminists and black feminists, but does not cite the source of this divide.  She does bring up the Civil Rights Movement and how it’s patriarchal structure influenced some black women to join the feminists, but she could go more in depth about how these movements interacted as well.

Another section of the reading that could have been more detailed was that of antifeminism.  There was an issue in the lack of information presented on how these groups interacted and the uniformity of their values.  The anti-feminists are shown as placing extreme value on motherhood and the importance of wives, but there was no insight into how they viewed equality in other arenas.  This is also the problem in the feminist description of their support for abortion as a protestation of being defined solely as mothers and wives.  To me, this does not seem to address whether or not feminists looked down upon mothers and housewives, or they just wanted other options.  Painting feminists and anti-feminists as such simple opposites leaves one to wonder how accurate that is.  Including research on how their views crossed over and digging deeper into the source of this opposition would be helpful, especially since the chapter includes antifeminism as one of its’ main subjects.

One of the most interesting parts of the chapter was the relatively short section on third wave feminists.  The nature of feminism she attributes to them is still very prevalent today, with many who should have intrinsic ties to feminism believing that all problems regarding sexism have been fixed.  The rise of literature identifying how problematic single-minded feminism can be to the movement would have been an engaging topic to expand on.  Being able to take a step back and realize there are still major obstacles to overcome is vital to the success of any movement.

Overall, I found this to be a very compelling read, with admittedly only a few problems that do not seriously detract from the content of the piece.  Learning more about the waves of feminism and how even that analogy itself is becoming outdated was enjoyable.  There is definitely value in observing why women in the movement are so keen to distinguish themselves by these waves, and how efforts between these waves have unfortunately been overlooked.

– Meghan Madonna

The ‘Girl Army’: The Philadelphia Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-1910 by Daniel Sidorick (critic)

Posted on by
Reply

In “The ‘Girl Army’: The Philadelphia Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-1910,” Daniel Sidorick takes a closer look at the under-analyzed Philadelphia shirtwaist strike that has received little attention in scholarly work.  He calls the strike a “pivotal moment” that deserves proper research.  Sidorick claims that the strike was one of the most “thorough attempts to unite women across class boundaries.”  However, Sidorick does not explicitly state his argument or form an organized thesis.  It is unclear whether the essay will focus on discovering why the young women originally began the strike or whether it will focus on how class differences affected the strike.  Both of these points are discussed in the essay but there is no direct statement unifying those two areas that Sidorick analyzes throughout the essay.

Sidorick believes that class differences played a significant role in the shirtwaist strike.  In the beginning of this essay, he does not mention which classes he will be examining- is it class differences between the lower and middle classes or the middle and upper classes? Also, class differences between the strikers themselves or between the strikers and others groups?  It is not until later in the essay that we realize he is talking about the class differences between the strikers and the wealthier women allies who aided the immigrant workers.  On page 332, Sidorick writes, “these two factors, gender and ethnicity, were to affect profoundly the development of the class battle between capitalists and the workers in the strike.”  At this point of the essay, a class battle between manufacturers and workers is brought into the picture, which is also not mentioned in Sidorick’s original introduction about class differences affecting the strike.

A great section of this essay is dedicated to explaining the rise of manufacturing companies and shirtwaist factories in Philadelphia.  While this is important for background information, it also takes away from the main purpose of this essay (which is also unclear) about class differences affecting the strike and also the reasons for the strike.  Sidorick also brings “union recognition” into the picture as the main goal of the strikers.  It seems the essay then shifts to focusing on how the young workers fought for union recognition.  Overall, the organization and flow of the paper was difficult to follow.  It is ironic that the structure of this essay is unclear when there are distinct subheadings informing the reader what a specific section will focus on.

Sidorick could have strengthened this paper by clarifying his introduction and thesis.  I believe it would have been in his best interest to directly state the factors he was going to discuss in the essay and also make a clearer argument that the reader could follow.  If the purpose of this essay was to simply provide information about the strike or stimulate discussion regarding it, that message also should have been formally stated.

-Lea Millio

The Girl Army: The Philadelphia Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-1910 by Daniel Sidorick

Posted on by
Reply

In “The Girl Army: The Philadelphia Shirtwaist Strike of 1909-1910”, Daniel Sidorick discusses the events of the Shirtwaist Strike of Philadelphia and he poses many questions about the event. One of his main goals is to return the Philadelphia event to its “rightful place” in history (326). The Philadelphia Shirtwaist strike has received less attention in history because it is often overshadowed by the New York strike. Sidorick argues that the Philadelphia strike was just as important as the strikes in New York and it deserves to be remembered as such. Unfortunately, the events in Philadelphia have been often overlooked because New York was a more popular area when it came to fashion and industry, even though the events that happened in Philadelphia were just as significant. He reminds us that the New York Triangle Shirtwaist Factory of 1911 is recognized frequently in our history books, yet there was a very similar fire in Philadelphia, just before the one in New York that claimed seven lives and injured dozens of others that is hardly ever mentioned.

Another goal of the article seems to be to attempt to answer the question of “why did the young immigrant women of 1909 become the girl army?” and “Why was it so important to them? (326-327). The Article states that on November 22, 1909, thousands of shirtwaist workers in New York went on strike against the industry due to terrible working conditions and low wages. I was in disbelief when I read that workers had to spend money from their own earnings to pay for things like equipment for sewing machines and drinking water in addition to the doors of the factory buildings being kept locked for most of the day (335). Workers in Philadelphia decided to support the strike in New York by starting a strike of their own. These women (and some men) demanded 50 hour work weeks, higher wages, better working conditions and a union shop to enforce all of these things (334). These women were willing to go without pay for months in hopes of securing a better life not only for themselves but for future generations as well. Many elite members of the community thought the girls on strike were “helpless” but they proved to be very committed to their cause, despite the hardships they had to face (337). The article mentions that one of the main reasons these women seemed to “go for it” was because they really had nothing to lose. They were lower class, and they barely made enough money to survive, so the lack of their very small income did not make much of a difference to them.

I think it is remarkable that these women were so willing to fight this battle, which proved to be very difficult, knowing that they may not have a place to live or food to eat because of it. This article seems to want to get across the power that can be unleashed when a community comes together to support a cause. Although, in saying that, the article does mention that one of the reasons the strike was successful was because the large population of the workforce of the garment industry at the time was white/Jewish. I wonder how different the outcome would have been if the industry was more diverse.

Some questions I would like to ask the class are: Where do you think these women got their forceful and demanding attitude that allowed them to support their cause for such a long time? How do you think this strike would have differed if the majority of the strikers were not white/jewish? Why do you think the events in Philadelphia are so often overlooked even though they were very similar to those in New York?

-Nicole Thomas

“The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of the War, 1861-1900” by Alice Fahs (Critic)

Posted on by
Reply

Alice Fahs’ “The Feminized Civil War: Gender, Northern Popular Literature, and the Memory of the War., 1861-1900” begins by illuminating how literature and popular culture were more inclusive towards women during the Civil War period. She analyzes this “feminization of the Civil War,” focusing mainly on northern women and their portrayal through literature. Yet, later in the paper, she also follows up postwar when popular views and understandings of the Civil War shifted towards a focus on white men and their place within the Civil War, leaving northern white women almost completely shutout. As I was reading “The Feminized War,” there were some slight issues that I came across.

Fahs begins the paper with a focus on northern women and how popular culture during the time of the Civil War allows for analysis and reflection for how women were viewed during this period. Although she begins to differentiate between the type of woman she is focusing on— by stating that this woman is “white” or that she is “northern,” she does not seem to differentiate between the type of women that are spoken of in terms of their economic place in society. For example, when she writes of the women who must find work after the death of their husbands, would we say the same for women of the lower classes who had no choice but to work outside the home from the very beginning? The use of the term “women” brings to mind inclusivity, but referring to women, when one appears to be speaking of only a certain category of women, can be better understood through added clarity. As I read Fahs’ paper, I felt that more clarity would have strengthened this section.

Within the paper, Fahs makes use of literature during the time of the Civil War in order to better explain how women were portrayed in popular culture. One specific ballad mentioned in the paper is that of John Greenleaf Whittier’s “Barbara Frietchie” (1467). The ballad focuses on the story of a woman who “defied Stonewall Jackson” (1467). But as I looked over the footnote, Fahs explains how Whittier “initially steadfastly asserted the veracity of the story upon which his ballad was based, but after the war he backpedaled” (1467). I feel that more explanation of this example would have strengthened the paper, especially when Fahs writes about the changes in women’s representation in various forms of literature after the war had ended.

Alice Fahs’ “The Feminized Civil War” provides the reader with a better understanding of how Civil War literature and popular culture in particular both helped to “feminize the Civil War” and to—postwar—brush over the memory of women and their place within society during the war. While my view that clarity in certain areas could help to strengthen the paper and to also answer possible questions left unanswered, Fahs’ paper continues to shed light on an important topic that many scholars have chosen to ignore.

– Pamela Ann Kelly

“Too Dark to be Angels” by Devon A. Mihesuah (Critic)

Posted on by
Reply

The article “Too Dark to Be Angels” by Devon A. Mihesuah attempts to shed light on the class differences within the Cherokee Female Seminary. It also explains how the class differences go hand-in-hand with the color differences within the Cherokee Nation. For instance, Mihesuah uses the term “full-blooded” to refer to the tribe’s people who were 100% Cherokee and not mixed. These two points contribute to the ever-growing struggle for identity the Cherokees were facing at that time. Although the article sheds light on a part of history that has not been seen before, it unfortunately left me with more questions than answers.

One of the questions I have revolves around the lack of information she presents (or does not present) regarding the Cherokee. For example, she does not spend enough time on the economic structure of the Cherokees. On page 180, Mihesuah explains that only the wealthy and those that could afford the tuition were allowed to enter the school. She also states, “… daughters of the wealthier families were sent to schools outside the Cherokee Nation and never attended the female seminary” (180). However, she never explains how certain Cherokees are richer than others. While she does explain that most of the Cherokees were farmers, and so they learned trades as opposed to other academics, she does not show the difference between those full-blooded families that are wealthy versus the ones that were poor. What kinds of jobs were the wealthy Cherokees involved with? What kind of jobs did their society allow them to be in? Of the men on the tribal council: was there a mix of rich and poor Cherokee men that made the decision on what was right for their culture?

Also, there is no explanation for the gender structure within the tribe. She does allude that the idea of women (at least some) as strong willed and able to run businesses without fear (189). However, this does not shed light on where women saw themselves in the nation. What is the woman’s place among the Cherokee and how does education contribute to her place in the clan? How did education change that?

Mihesuah explains that some Cherokee families were only able to afford the education for one child in which that child saw herself/himself as better than their siblings (190). What did that do to the family structure after the daughter completed her training? How did this effect relationship or how did it create tensions within the household? She does not use primary sources to explain this further.

She also seemed at times contradictory. At one point she says that the school “helped to strengthen their [the women’s] identities as Cherokees” (190). With the evidence that she presented, I do not agree with this. Yes some women, like Na-Li, spoke up about their culture. However, Na-Li was a full-blooded Cherokee and therefore darker than most of the women at the school. She could not pass as anything other than Cherokee. The lighter, mixed-blood girls felt a superiority because of the lack of Cherokee in their blood. They also married men who had lesser Cherokee blood than they did. This was an effort to wash-out their Cherokeeness. They would also often lie about the amount of Cherokee in them. This, to me, does not seem equate a strong Cherokee identity (190).

-Alisah Rivera