“Too Dark to Be Angels” by Devon A. Mihesuah

Posted on by
Reply

When I initially looked over the list of passages to advocate for or critique for our class, this one immediately caught my eye as something I could boast about. Even just the title “Too dark to be angels” triggered a feeling of resonance that I felt I could advocate for. Unfortunately, in our society, “whiteness” is valued and even preferred in society. Though this passage takes place in early America, today in 2016, the subject of being “too dark” is still relevant.

In the article, Devon A. Mihesuah describes the class system implemented in female seminary schools for Cherokee and “mixed blood girls”. Mihesuah explains the stereotypes full blood Cherokee girls were pushed into, and the very classist/ racist environment in these schools. According to the argument, full blood Cherokee girls were treated pretty poorly in these schools. Because they were not as white as other students, they were looked down upon and felt isolated form the other students. Thought this is a story of a white/native issue, I felt as though this association of whiteness with greatness can be applied to other ethnic groups as well.

Throughout American history, whiteness, especially in terms of education is seen as superior to other types of education. In this passage, Mihsuah emphasizes that seminary schools were preferred over local common schools by Cherokee women, and that whiteness was a standard worth achieving. Upon reading this I was astounded at how much this idea still lives in our society today. Upon coming to Temple University, I would encounter people for the first time surprised by the way I speak, often exclaiming “wow you talk so white!!” Right there is an example of how our society STILL associates intelligence with whiteness, much like the whiter girls attending the seminary schools in the reading.

Another part of the article that struck me very hard was a quote from page 182 saying “It appears that the more Cherokee blood a girl had, or the more Indian she looked, the more she felt she had to prove herself as a scholar and as a useful member of a society that (she believed) valued only those women who were white in appearance and in attitude.”[1] This quote caught my eye again, because of how relevant it still s in today’s society. As mentioned before, whiteness is not only associated with intelligence, but beauty as well. Our society prefers European features to those of women of color, and is not afraid to plaster them all over society. From magazines to TV shows and movies, white features are a lot more likely to be showcased as the epitome of beauty. This quote also exemplifies the struggle of disproving the stereotypes people of color are often forced into. W.E.B. Dubois calls this concept “double consciousness” [2]Within it people of color are forced to deal with being both American and a person of color. When this is the case, they are forced to see themselves through the eyes of white Americans, and try their best to function in society. This means being constantly aware of stereotypes, and working whole-heartedly to disprove them, which is exactly what Mihusea writes about these young Cherokee girls. In conclusion, this passage was wonderfully written, and eye opening as the issues it explains are still very much alive in society today. One question I do have, however, would be what caused the fires that ruined the school, and when our society will stop making whiteness a goal.

-Deja Sloan

[1] Devon Mihesuah, “Too Dark to Be Angels” in Ruiz, Vicki L.., and Ellen Carol DuBois eds. Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Womem’s History. New York: Routledge, 1994. 9 (Too dark to be angels)

[2] W.E.B.Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk: Essays and Sketches. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, 1961.

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

This enlightening article highlights the role of women and gender as presented through Northern literature during and after the Civil War. Alice Fahs begins with the traditional narrative that women had no place in war and knew nothing about it. An anonymous woman who wrote to a Union paper believed otherwise. According to Fahs, women were actively involved in “wartime concerns.” Fahs discusses the importance of feminized literature that stressed “the importance of women’s contributions to the war effort, but increasingly it argued that women’s homefront suffering were equal to, or even greater than, those of men in battle” (Fahs 1462).

An important part of the wartime effort, the female side of the war was presented through “stories, essays, poems, articles, novels, broadsides, and cartoons” (Fahs 1462). This provided women with an active role in the Civil War narrative. Harper’s Weekly, one of the most popular Civil War era magazines, and continuing into the twentieth century, featured over sixty percent feminized stories from 1862-1864 (1463).

I found Fahs’s mention that in the years following the Civil War, the strong female presence and perspective seen during the war dissipated, as the “memory” and narrative of the war story shifted to the male perspective to be one of the most interesting parts of the article, and is something that I had not previously thought of. Now knowing the significant body of work published about women in the war effort is an important part of the Civil War that disappeared from American minds in the late nineteenth century. Fahs says that it then began to be “increasingly redefined as a man’s only war” (1464).

The author makes a strong connection between women supporting men enlisting in the war and the idea of “revolutionary mothers”, recalling the iconography of Betsy Ross and the few other colonial women referenced in popular culture (1465). This interesting analysis makes a strong case for the romanticism of a woman’s “duty” to husband, brother, family, and country. Popular songs and poems were created and widely distributed, all using women’s perspectives, all for the cause. One example is the story of Barbara Frietchie who heroically asks that Confederate soldiers kill her before they harm the Union flag (1469). Though many were supportive of the war effort (in the North), women’s emotions are an integral part of feminized literature. “In feminized war literature women’s emotions, especially their tears, were often portrayed as giving appropriate value to men’s actions” (1466). While it is not mentioned directly, this might be an interesting piece of propaganda to support the war effort.

A very different feminized narrative of the Civil War is war romances, which appeared plentiful in number in numerous publications. At the same time, loss and suffering play a key role in the Civil War with the staggering numbers of deaths and casualties. Winslow Homer’s words push the notion of “women’s words—represented as deeper than those of men—were at the emotional center of the nation” (1476).

The demise of the legacy of feminized literature during the Civil War came about during a change in tone with as Fahs says, “the rise of literary fiction”, therefore these perhaps exaggerated and outdone stories were laughed out of popularity by a more masculine aesthetic of realism, “explicitly disavowing earlier sentimental and domestic norms” (1489).

It is important to note that this article focuses on the northern women’s perspective on the war, and does not largely consider the perspectives of southern white women or slaves. Additionally, Fahs does not go in great depth into what women’s stories of the war. I would’ve liked to see a few more examples.  Despite this, I am the advocate for this essay, and I do believe that Alice Fahs examination into feminized literature of the Civil War to be thorough and thoughtful. It provides an interesting context to a heavily studied era in American History, although other than the origins of modern medicine—and the assistance of female nurses, and the southern belle narrative of Gone With the Wind. The former is getting more attention with a new PBS show Mercy Street. Putting that aside, the role of women, near the battlefield, and at home, had a tremendous impact on the Civil War through popular literature at the time, a lens, and the significance of it that has been all but forgotten in the collective American memory, Alice Fahs does a fantastic job of bringing it back to life.

– William Kowalik

“Pedestal, Loom, and Auction Block” by Ellen Carol Dubois and Lynn Dumenil

Posted on by
Reply

Ellen Carol Dubois and Lynn Dumenil’s “Pedestal, Loom, and Auction Block” from Through Women’s Eyes

In chapter four of Through Women’s Eyes, the authors give an historical account of women’s lives in antebellum America, comparing and contrasting the experiences of Northern and Southern women. During this period women’s lives were heavily influenced by their positions either within or outside of the sphere/boundaries of acceptable womanhood, the first wave of American industrialization, and their relationship to the institution of slavery, as slaves, abolitionists, or as beneficiaries of the system.

Dubois and Dumenil recognize the “cult of true womanhood/domesticity” as an ideology of absolutely opposing gender roles that divided men and women in terms of family life, public life, religious expression, and work experiences. Housewifery and childrearing were seen as women’s natural state, and the authors argue that the supposed success of American democracy depended on motherhood and maternal selflessness. The feminization of the teaching profession was a result of women being cheaper to hire than men, and also because of their expansive maternity for which they were regarded as better suited to teach children. A wave of religious revivals (the Second Great Awakening) in the early 19th century contributed to the identification of women with Christian piety, which in turn enhanced women’s public lives through churchgoing, volunteering, and missionary excursions. The effect of the burgeoning market economy during this period was a decline in the economic value of middle class women’s domestic household production but an increase in the moral significance of the domestic sphere.

Conversely, slave women of the American south had a very different experience of womanhood than northern white women. They had no true households to manage, and distinctions between public and private, and work and family did not feature much at all in their lives. Wealthy women shifted their maternal duties onto their slaves, which left both groups detached from the process of motherhood. The “southern white feminine ideal” of elite white women was expressive of similar ideas about womanhood as in the northern conception of it, except in the south, white women’s purity and selflessness was “defined in contrast to the condition of black slave women.” Northern white women were praised for their “industrious domesticity,” while white southern women were not supposed to engage in any actual labor, lest they be brought to the level of the slaves. Marriage in both regions prohibited white women from property ownership, while black women were not allowed to have their marriages even legally recognized. Slave women were so far removed from generalizations of true womanhood that it is plain to see that they were “excluded from the category of ‘woman’ altogether.”

The rise of factory production in the north made it possible for women to earn wages as individuals, even though they were paid less than men for tasks that were considered less skilled. Women who labored as domestic servants for middle-class mistresses were a rung above women who comprised the urban poor, who were seen as the absolute antithesis of true womanhood—unable to find meaningful work, husbands, or childcare. Bearing this in mind, the personal freedoms afforded to all white women regardless of their economic status, including living with their own families, moving about, education, and general freedom, did not exist for black slave women.

The limited sphere of acceptable womanhood was limited even further depending on a woman’s race, economic status, and social class. Dubois and Dumenil accurately depict how variations in these factors determined the quality of life for women in America in the years leading up to the Civil War.

-Nina Taylor

“How Betsy Ross Became Famous” by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Posted on by
Reply

“How Betsy Ross Became Famous” by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich challenges the validity of the publically accepted legend that is the story of Betsy Ross.  In her article, “How Betsy Ross Became Famous”, Ulrich takes a look at the “afterlife” of Betsy Ross and explores its significance to the American public from the time the story was first publicized in 1870 until modern times.  Ulrich considers the remarks of other historians and scholars in reference to the story of Betsy Ross and also considers the importance of developing and preserving the image a female Revolutionary heroin.   I found this article to be exploratory and instigating.  Ulrich makes several points and brings in several sources to make her readers really consider, how did Betsy Ross become famous?

Ulrich begins the article with the development of Betsy Ross ‘s story by Ross’s grandson, William Canby at the Pennsylvania Historical Society.  Ulrich makes a strong point, reiterating it towards the end of the article as well, that the original telling of the story of Betsy Ross transpired at a perfect time.  The country had just emerged from the Civil War and was preparing to celebrate its centennial.  There was a preference among many to include women, or a woman, in the history of the American Revolution.  Betsy Ross was the prime candidate to fill that spot.  Ulrich defends this point by acknowledging that several stories about other women creating the first flag for President Washington were also being tossed around during that time.  The stories had some traction but they never caught on.  What made Betsy Ross different?  Ulrich examines this question by considering the image of Betsy Ross and what she represents.  This also requires separating the real person, Elizabeth Claypool, from the Revolutionary character of Betsy Ross.  Betsy Ross is a safe, noncontroversial icon.  She fits the narrative of freedom and the role of a woman during the American Revolution.  The legend of Betsy Ross has become more about the image and the meaning behind the character than about the person herself.  The general public doesn’t particularly care if the story is true or not.  They love Betsy Ross and the reputation that the character has assumed over the years.

Ulrich makes another strong case for the popularity of Betsy Ross by arguing that because no first flag exists, it has been easy for the story of Betsy Ross to survive.  While Ulrich makes clear that there is little evidence confirming that Betsy Ross made the first flag, there is also a lack of evidence contesting that claim.  For a mid-size article, Ulrich goes into great depth trying to piece together, or rather to pull apart, the story of Betsy Ross by comparing the stories told by Canby and Rachel Fletcher, Ross’s daughter.  Ulrich challenges the reader to consider why the story of Betsy Ross has been so widely accepted and does the story deserve to continue into the next century?  I believe that Ulrich’s purpose for this article is to initiate a conversation about how historical symbols reflect the values of a country and highlight the needs and wants of the people.

After analyzing this article, I ask my classmates to consider, if the story of Betsy Ross didn’t exist, do you think a woman of some other profession would have filled the shoes of a female Revolutionary representative? How important was it to have a famous female from the American Revolution?  Does the actual person, Elizabeth Claypool, still hold importance in famous icon of Betsy Ross? Why haven’t writing such as this, challenging the validity of the legend, affected the public’s praise of Betsy Ross?

-Lea Millio

Susan Klepp’s “Revolutionary Bodies: Women and the Fertility Transition in the Mid- Atlantic Region, 1760- 1820”

Posted on by
Reply

“Revolutionary Bodies: Women and the Fertility Transition in the Mid- Atlantic Region, 1760- 1820” by Susan Klepp

This essay explores the shifts in the attitudes of men, women, and society concerning pregnancy and fertility rates. While this subject seems most important for women, Klepp analyzes the stance of men at the time. The shift from lifetime fertility to truncated fertility is marked by the changing demographics of married couples and societal circumstances. Rather than continuously bear children, families consider the economic and social benefits of having children. They propose a number of children rather than continuously produce an unknown number of children. The exploration of fertility rates gives us an interpretation that attempts to be women centered with the narratives that Klepp provides.

Fertility and women giving birth was often compared to agriculture. This give the distinct comparison of women to cattle. Through use of certain vocabulary to describe pregnant women (“with child, “breeding”, referring to children as their “flock”), the author shows us the sentiment towards women at the time. She calls attention to the importance of words used to describe fertility. With these words we can understand the rise and decline of fertility and how that affected women.

Klepp uses the poems Annis Stockton as an opinion of childbearing at the time. She uses the poems of the same women, before and after the Revolution to show the changing views of fertility and pregnancy. Stockton was once an advocate for the many infants she was producing, but later she writes a poem about the tendency for women to remain in domestic stations (927). This shows us the increasing importance of feminine intelligence for women Post revolution. Combined with these poems, she shows us images describing the attitudes towards childbirth. Through these images we can compare the importance of fertility in 1750 with the decreasing importance in the late 1700s.

It is useful that Klepp mentions the conditions of consumerism during colonial times. Nonconsumption of the Revolutionary was a contributing factor to the lowering birthrates. While restrictions and frugality led to nonconsumption in both men and women, it led to “prudence” in women, which is the restriction of birth rates. The idea that outside forces, mostly societal and economic, was widely explored in this essay. She sites not only the attitudes towards consumption during the Revolutionary era, but the writings of Thomas Malthus on population control. In order to understand the shift in fertility rates, we must understand the economic circumstances and the revolution of intellectualism during this time of Enlightenment. Klepp offers an adequate investigation of these conditions.

Klepp was very self-aware of her writing. She mentioned the biases of history toward the wealthy and the white during the late 18th century. She also states that her research could be expanded to engage the idea of masculinity in those times. She agrees that her essay is not all encompassing and works only under that constraint.

Klepp does an excellent analysis of body autonomy during this period. Through her writing, we learn that fertility rates were directly affected by wealth, economics, social movements, and practicality. By studying fertility rates we can see the conceptions of women intellectualism and domesticity. This essay was useful for the overall theme of understanding women in history.

-Lisa Bugasch

“Anglo-Indian Gender Frontier” by Kathleen M. Brown

Posted on by
Reply

Our first student entry is by Maggie Lindrooth, who says it was unfortunate  that she was alloted the role of critic for this article–as she would have embraced the role of Advocate.

“Anglo-Indian Gender Frontier”  by Kathleen M. Brown

The article asserts on page 2 (13) that the Native Americans were “feminized” in the eyes of the English. How so? Was this because of the fact that the women were responsible for agricultural labor and the men hunted, an act that Englishmen at the time deemed frivolous and reserved for nobility? One would think that it would have occurred to the English that hunting large wild animals is dangerous, and that the purpose of Native hunts was quite different than the leisure fox hunts of England. Kathleen Brown at this point makes assertions about the English view of Natives, but doesn’t give much evidence to back it up, which I find problematic regardless of whether she is correct. Additionally, she describes the “tidewater inhabitants” throughout the article, but why are we not given the actual tribes that lived there? What tribe was Powhatan from? Yes, they were Algonquian-speakers, but does that mean they were also Algonquian, or just that there tribe also spoke that language? Also, in this early section of the document, native women are presented as appearing to have relative control and power in their societies. However, it becomes quite clear later in the article that Native women were also subordinate to the men, they just filled different places in society than English women did in English society.

Later in the article, Brown shifts suddenly to talk about Indian men’s social and work roles and how they change after the coming of age ceremony, however she does little to establish pre-coming of age roles and how these things might have shifted. It seems like an odd anecdote to throw in, since although it discusses gender and Native gender perception and roles, it just sits there without explaining much about the shift in dynamics or relations with either women or the English, other than to say that “…men’s social and work roles became distinct from women’s at the moment of the huskanaw–a male rite of passage–and remained so until the men were too old to hunt or go to war,” (15). While this presents an interesting introduction to the Indian idea of manhood and masculinity, I wish it had been compared in any way to either Native female coming of age, or English male coming of age rites and how they defined gender roles. I wish in general that the article had explained more how children were viewed and what their roles were (in terms of gender), and also how older women were viewed and treated in Native communities.

Throughout the article, I found it hard to tell what the author’s stance was on Powhatan. She describes him alternately as a strong leader who united different tribes, and a seemingly crucial force behind the increase of patriarchal ideas in Algonquian-speaking culture. He may have been both these things, but it makes it difficult to understand exactly how much he was or was not responsible for both the Native shifts in gender roles and the English actions and reactions. Had he ruled differently, would the colonization of Virginia looked different?

While overall an interesting article, there were several issues with it. The structure seemed to wander from one topic to the next and while these may have been connected, the transitions seemed weak and the added anecdotes (Spelman, for example), seemed off course. Because of this, I had to wonder if all the information she included was relevant to the argument and the issue. Were there things not included that may have served the piece better? I have to wonder, and wish I could read the other articles in this book to more fully understand these relationships.

-Maggie Lindrooth