Reaction Post #1

I came into this course with only a vague interest in questions of American identity and values, but as the weeks have gone by, I've become increasingly engaged with the material. For one, I've been learning more about historical events in our history that I either had no idea about (the Centenniel), or others that I only had little knowledge on (Custer's Last Stand). The focus on the nuts and bolts of the culture, the collective consciousness -- things like music, popular novels, and festivals -- really puts history in a framework that reveals more about our past beyond the facts and numbers we were taught in American History classes in high school.

Another thing I've enjoyed are moments in lectures when the professor ties in something historical to something current, like echos of Lincoln in Obama's inaugral speech. Because of that sense of interconnectedness, and the interaction we've had with these concrete cultural artifacts (the "nuts and bolts"), it becomes easier to trace trends in ideologies and tastes throughout time.

My favorite lecture was probably the one on "Little Women," even though it was so short, I felt a real authenticity and insight in the analysis. I hadn't realized how much technological change could contribute to shifts in gender politics until then. I was also fascinated by Confederates in the Attic, as I had no idea that the practicioners of Civil War re-enactments were that "hardcore."

My favorite book to read so far has been Little Women. It was definitely different to read it now, as an adult, than it was fifteen or so years ago, especially knowing more about the era in which it was written. I also hadn't realized, way back when, that it was a book about manners for women. The only thing I think is interesting on that point is that Louisa May Alcott never strictly points out which girl was the BEST. All of them have their strengths and weaknesses, all of them appeal in some part to young ladies, and all of them suffer and sustain in life. I think it was an interesting twist that Beth, the best model that the girls of Alcott's era were supposed to look up to, died...was it, as Professor Hass suggested, because she was too good? Was Alcott simply suggesting that it was okay to have some faults, as long as one worked to improve them?

Hopefully this class will continue to help us understand questions such as these...

So I've been thinking a lot about the last discussion (1/29) in which we talked about Killer Custer. Although I didn't love the book, I found a lot of the topics we discussed in class rather intriguing. Mostly, I have been thinking about Manifest Destiny. Although I think most people would agree that white superiority is the backbone of Manifest Destiny and Domesticity, perhaps more worthy of consideration, I pose that white supremacy may still be alive today. Before I offend anyone or over-step the boundary of that previous statement, let me explain more precisely what I mean. The first discussion question presented by Elaine and Sara was: 'Where can we see Indian cruelty in today's society?' The answer that we posed in class was that the Indians have become this extinct subject, mostly because the Indian population has either assimilated into the 'popular culture' or have become residents of the reserves. In this 'out of sight, out of mind' instance, it is hard to say exactly if there is cruelty towards Indians today. The topic in class then moved towards the benefits that Indians receive as "compensation" for the cruelty of the late 1800's. Compensation seems reasonable enough, and it doesn't necessarily scream cruelty - at first glance. But as I thought more about the "compensation" I began to realize that not much has changed. Just as the whites offered the Indians the choice of assimilation or annihilation in the time of the Indian wars, Americans are still offering Indians a similar choice: assimilation or extinction. I use the word assimilation because as I see it, the compensation that is offered to the Indians is not a gift of Indian restitution but rather the white man's restitution. We offer education and money or opportunity to make money, all things of the white man. We offer reservations. We give land, but we do not offer the freedom of the land.

So I guess all I am trying to say is this: white superiority may be a thing of the past. But have the objectives of the white man become as extinct as the topic of Indian cruelty?

I really enjoyed Killing Custer. Throughout the book I found it astonishing with how much detail Welch was able to describe not only the context of each Indian-white battle, but also the important happenings that would eventually culminate in Little Big Horn in '76. One thing that I found interesting was Welch's insight into the U.S army during the time --What made Custer a good leader? What were his shortcomings as a military leader as far as strategy (he didn't even scout the surrounding areas before his attack on southern Cheyenne leading to the massacre of Elliott's men --come on dude!), how, despite his 10 month banishment, he was reinstated and due to his usefulness to the army as a morale booster, and an interesting re-organization of army personnel following the civil war away from experienced, albeit older officers, toward brash young officers like Custer who may not have had the military mind necessary for the job and which caused dissension in his 7th unit. 

 While I, like many of you, enjoyed the book's even-handedness in showing the Indian perspective, I felt that a shortcoming of the book was Welch's occasionally over-opinionated nature. However, I understand that this may have come as the result of the author being a native himself. Overall, I enjoyed the passion with which he wrote the book, which really resonated with me the reader. By the end, I felt more knowledgeable but mostly very sympathetic to the plight of the Native Americans.

I absolutely reading Killing Custer, and I enjoyed discussing it even more. The book was easy to read through which allowed for deeper understanding of the events that were portrayed in the book. It was great that the book covered a topic that everyone in the class could relate to, which lead to involved and interesting discussions. It was interesting to hear each classmates view on the weight of all of the Native Americans killed versus those who were killed during the Holocaust. Of course there is no right or wrong answer, and there were great arguments for both sides.

I only wish we had more time to discuss some of the many hints Welch used to show his side of the story. For example, he payed a lot of attention to the faults and failings of Custer, which clearly showed that he was not for the Americans in this particular subject. Can anyone else point out anything else he says or does to give away his viewpoint?

FIRST REFLECTION POST

FIrst, I hope that this isnt considered late being on the 31st and im sorry if it is.
there have been so many good discussions and readings that i dont know where to start. I really enjoyed confederates in the attick actually. im a history buff so i liked reading about the battles and stuff like that, but the social aspect was also really interesting. I had no idea that there were so many people in the south who felt so strongly about the confederate flag. personally, i am one of the people mentined who say "you lost...get over it" and i will support that position. However, even before i read this book i knew that not every southerner who flew the falg wanted to sceed from the union, that the flag was very much a simbol of stated rights to them and not of the confederacy. what i didnt know was how many other meanings there are to the flag. there are people who feel that it still is simbolic of slavery, and others who feel that its simply and simbol of the rebelious spirit of the confederacy. perhaps most surprising of all to me though was the reaction the flag got out of some people...i didnt know that anyone felt that strongly. i simply couldnt believe that even today the flag could stir up enough emotiom to motivate someone to murder another human being.
my favorite reading though was little women. while i definately had to read through the sexism in it i tought it was simply a really good book simply for entertainment purposes. i could also appreciate how well it illustrated life in that era, or at least what life would be like idealy. some of the discussion in class surpreised me though. first, i was surprised by the varing age ranges given for what people thought the target audience was and it really showed me how differently people can interpret the same text. I wounder how differently the book read for those who thought that the target audience was say...around seventeen than for me, who though it was closer to thirteen. i was also surprised that while there were so many variations on the age of the tarfet audience everyone seemed to agree that hannah was white (or at least not black). it seemed to me that if anything would have been up for debate it would have been that and i was surprised when we all aggreed. so far i have really enjoyed our discussions and look forward to more of them. see you in section

Reflection #1

I thought the most interesting point brought up thus far in the course is how throughout all the readings we seem to use identities of others to try and find our own"identity". In the case of the Native Americans we see a flip flop, first in Playing Indian, we use the cultural aspects to show Britain that we are different, new, and no longer willing to let them rule over us. After succeeding we then decide we no longer want to work peacefully with the Natives. Killing Custer shows a more vivid side of this, where instead of praising the culture of the natives, we see them as savage and a threat that needs to be "dealt with". It seems that we used this culture and later others when its convenient to us. Then when a new threat or new ideal comes around we "dispose" of the culture and take on a new one.

Which brings me back to a topic that was brought up before in discussion, its concept being something that I agree with. However unfortunate it is that we use these cultures, its interesting to think about if we hadn't used them, where would we be today? And again it is horrible that we as Americans have done these things to others, it is really thanks to these cultures that we are where we are today. The real trick is now that we know what has happened and our trends are we as Americans going to break this cycle or like before continue to use others and dispose of them at will?

Controversial Issues

I felt that our last discussion section contained some of the most interesting topics to date. One of the most fascinating topics to me was the compensation given to those with a Native American ancestry. While controversial, it appears to me that this is something that may never come to a definitive solution, making it all the more interesting to talk about. We discussed how monetarily compensating Native Americans can be seen as almost negative, attempting to place a value on the suffering they incurred. While I somewhat agree, we as a nation are in a difficult place. It is clear that there is nothing we can really do that will change the atrocities that occurred. There is no "undo". That being said, one of the most important actions should be to educate children in depth about what really occurred. Beyond that however, I see no way other than monetary compensation to even attempt to make amends for what we as a nation have done. Also, it should be taken into consideration that this contribution is really intended repayment for the land and resources that we took from the native Americans, rather than direct compensation for their suffering.

I also found the conversation about early education significant. I believe that there are several considerations that must be taken when determining what is an appropriate age to educate children on particularly sensitive or graphic topics. First, we should not underestimate our youth. Often I believe that we wrongly assume children will be incapable of understanding something or that they are too young, when in reality they have likely already been exposed to similar content through television, etc. However, there is one idea not discussed in class that I felt was very important. There are many issues that can be discussed and understood on a basic level, however are in reality very complex and may have dimensions that a younger child simply cannot understand. Take for example the discussion of the holocaust we had. On surface level it is not hard to explain the events that occurred in Germany during WWII. However, a young child may understand at a basic level and at the same time not fully grasp what was going on or make false connections. For example, something that does not necessarily bother me (as my family was there at the time) but I see frequently is the connection that Germany was evil and responsible for what occurred, rather than Hitler's regime. Many people that have not been fully educated on the topic fail to realize that it was a small group of people that forced their beliefs on a nation who are responsible for what occurred. Many, if not the majority of German people were equally disgusted with Hitler's policies. At that time, an individual had no choice but to go along with the policies enacted. Many adults were drafted and forced into service for the Nazi party, and had to fight and die for something they didn't believe in. Many, many non-Jewish Germans were jailed and killed for offenses as minor as listening to the wrong radio station. There was a great deal of suffering occurring outside of the concentration camps, and without the proper education and thorough understanding misinterpretations are easily made. Therefore, we must take into account the complexity of each issue before deciding when an appropriate time to begin a child's education on the subject is.

In discussion we talked about where/how different education systems teach about subjects such as the Holocaust and the battle of Little Bighorn. I definitely agree that schools ought to start educating children at a younger age about such 'unpleasant' realities of the past. I believe, even at a very young age, children have the capacity to understand the implications behind such events. In elementary school, I had a teacher who taught extensively on the Holocaust, and it completely opened my eyes to something I couldn't have even fathomed to exist. I wondered how such atrocities could have occurred; yet, I was completely oblivious to the genocide of the Indians. In fact, in elementary school I never really even thought about real, live Native Americans. I only thought of them as something of the past (just as the exterminators of the Indians intended to do- make Indians a part of the past and further, to write it in history in a way to perpetuate this idea).

It is also true that schools teach by the government standards of which history books are written by the 'white man'. In truth, I didn't really know anything about Custer and the battle of Little Bighorn. To me, it was buried under all the other dates and battles I had vaguely been introduced to in middle/high school. If I had learned about it in the way the book "Killing Custer" had rendered it, it definitely would have been an unforegettable event in my mind. Again, children should be taught about such important subjects at an earlier age. With that, they can grow to better understand the implications and repercussions behind these events, not only of which occurred in the past but are sadly still present in modern day.

I agree that "Killing Custer" was a great book.  It was nice to learn about Native Americans from the perspective of a native himself.  Welch also does a great job of telling the story of the Indian wars without sugar coating it.  Although I feel that he is opinionated at times, I think it works for the book because the emotion that he puts into his writing shows how passionate he is about the topic and allows the reader to feel more connected in a personal way.  

I like how all of our readings seem to tie together.  They all seem to be about extremely different subjects yet once you see how they tie together it makes perfect sense.  During the part in "Killing Custer" when Welch goes to find the bend in the Marias river where the Battle of the Marias occurred, I couldn't help but remember back to Tony Horowitz when he visited the battle sites of the Civil War (particularly Shiloh).  Both men seemed to put themselves back in time to the actual battles that occurred at the sites and also seemed to feel connected to the sites themselves because of their relatives.  

Another part I liked about the book was the pictures because I think that the illustrations/pictures allow the reader to get a good perspective of what the cultural ideals of that time were (eg the illustrations glorifying Custer and various other generals while making the indians look like savages).  On page 88 there are two pictures of Red Cloud, one in his traditional indian attire, and one where he is dressed in "white man" clothes.  These pictures deeply affected me because he looked so strikingly different.  I also knew that by changing his clothes he was not only changing his outward appearance, but also his way of life by assimilating to the white man's culture.

Another thing I found astonishing and almost comical was the fact that many of the generals who fought during the Indian Wars and the Civil War was that they were glorified both then and now, but a number of them were actually drunk during battle!  (such as Baker)  These generals were sometimes so drunk that they didn't even recognize that a battle was going on around them.  Just think about what a controversy it would be today if a military official or officer was drunk while fighting in battle.

Killing Custer reflection

I also thought this book was a really interesting and great book for us to read. I liked hearing the other side of the story because I knew Native Americans were oppressed and killed but I was not aware of the extent. Even taking AP history in high school I don't recall learning about their side of the story and how much we abused them.
I found it interesting how some schools teach their students one side and not the other. I do think it is very important for us to know our history, even if it does not make our country look good. I'm from Farmington Hills (where the Holocaust memorial that someone was talking about is) and during my senior year of high school we had an interdisciplinary study througout my school on genocide. I was on the newspaper staff and we made a 60 page magazine on various genocides. Our oppression of the Native Americans was included. I learned a lot about not just Native Americans, but other genocides I was not even aware of. While I'm glad I learned this information because I think it made me more aware of injustices around the world, I do think I could have learned it before my senior year. I wish I had been educated earlier on these topics and I think it is important for younger students to learn the information I did.
I am reading the book for our upcoming discussion and it also talks about what should be taught in schools and which side of the story should be told. I think it is absolutely important for both sides of the story to be sold, not just the side that makes America look good. And younger students should know both sides too.

I really liked “Killing Custer” because it was an interesting combination of actual historical facts intertwined with the personal connections and stories of the author, James Welch. His portrayal of the Indian Wars and the Native American genocide was horribly sad but eye-opening at the same time. I think the book really helped to expose the other side of the Indian Wars and the truth that has been pushed under the rug for a long time.

During our discussion section I thought it was interesting to hear everyone’s past educational experiences in regards to Native Americans. It seemed that the general consensus was that most predominantly white schools failed to fully educate their students on the true nature of the Indian Wars and the extent of the genocide that occurred. However, I really started thinking when one of the girls in our class said that her predominantly black school had no issue with telling the students exactly what happened and how the Native Americans were almost wiped out by the rest of the Americans. It seems that white people today still associate themselves with the Americans of that time period, and don’t want to publicize what actually happened because they have some type of guilt carried over. However, other racial groups who don’t relate to Custer and the Americans during that era, tell the true story without brushing over the real details. Unfortunately it seems that there is a trend in the United States of trying to downplay our ugly past, including the Native American genocide, slavery, the Japanese internment camps, and countless other instances. I think it is time that we accept our past and stop pretending it didn't happen. We need to start educating our youth about our country's REAL history, regardless if it makes us feel uncomfortable or not.

Killing Custer Reflection

First off, I enjoyed “Killing Custer” a great deal. Welch’s righting style and the stories told by the Indian’s point of view were very captivating and heartbreaking. It really shed a lot of light on the incidents and massacres that occurred during the Indian wars. What I found intriguing was how pushed aside the Indian stories were during this time and even in today’s society.

When reading the numbers of how 6 million Indians inhabited the contiguous United States when Columbus arrived and by 1900, less than 250,000 thousand remained, I couldn’t help but think of the World War Two genocide. I realize that the Indian Wars were a “War”, but it is hard to believe that the white men at the time merely wanted to be victorious. Throughout the book, people of high power used words such as Annihilate to describe how they wanted the Indians to be dealt with. Also, on multiple occasions, the whites wouldn’t make a treaty with the Indians because they knew they would just wipe them out of the territory such as the Black Hills.

I also found it interesting that there were multiple Indian groups that took different sides of the issues. From growing up and learning about the Indian wars in public school, I imagined that all of the Indians were working together to fight back against the incoming whites. What I learned from reading the book was that there were tribes that tried to work with the whites through treaties, tribes that didn’t want any part of American treaties and wanted to be left alone (Sitting Bull), and Indians that even worked a long side the whites such as Custer’s scouts.

Killing Custer Reflection

James Welch illuminates the history of the Indian Wars through his own eyes as well as historical facts.  This portrayal of the Indian people allows, at least for me, (a person with an inept grasp on the history of the Native American people) to grovel with this painful 'white' past.  I found this reading to be informative both in the way it captured the historical events and its unbiased tone, allowing the reader to form their own intellect regarding the Indian Wars.  

I wanted to comment on a point I found really interesting in discussion.  On the topic of how our educational systems have taught us about the Indian Wars, one person who was educated in a predominately black school spoke up and said her teacher did not sugar coat these wars because they were acts committed by the white people.  I found this comment interesting for two reasons.  Coming from a predominate white school, myself, my teacher's did withhold parts of the truth about factual historical events, and I feel as though I have been lied to.  Also, it makes me think about how racial groups don't have a problem revealing acts of wrongdoings of groups outside their own, but when it comes to their own mistakes, they are quietly brushed under the rug.  

As I was reading "Killing Custer," I too found difficulty tying together this book and the title for the week, "White City/White Nation."  After lecture and discussion, I realized that Professor Hass, wanted us to connect the idea of Manifest Destiny, conjured by the white people, and how this 'god given right' affected our country and those present at the time.  

White City/White Nation Reflection

I honestly enjoyed reading Killing Custer. It was nice to get Welch's objective research at the same time as his subjective viewpoints. When Professor Hass talked about Chicago in lecture and the World's Fair, I had a hard time making the initial connection between Custer and Chicago history. I realized that the title of this week's lectures says it all: White City/White Nation.

Custer was the embodiment of the American desire to fulfill Manifest Destiny, to overtake the country and 'utilize' the land in what they thought was a better fashion than how the Indians were utilizing it. The white race had power over the Indians because they outnumbered the Indians. Custer symbolized this ideal to the American people, who relished the idea of 'white' as virtuous, whether consciously or not. For example, I don't know if the architects of Chicago before the World's Fair purposely made the buildings white as a symbol of white power, but the fact is that what was conveyed by the white theme of a rising city was white power. American ideals were deeply affected by Custer and what he meant to Manifest Destiny.

And for anyone who's interested in Chicago during the Colombian Exposition of 1893, read The Devil in the White City by Erik Larson. It is about the architects of the fair intertwined with the story of a serial killer, and I thought it was a very interesting book.

Killing Custer

I found this book to be very interesting. As many others have pointed out it gave a completely different perspective on the Battle of Little Big Horn, and the battles leading up to it than we ever really learn in school. I never really realized how much of a myth Custer really is. He never really did anything that incredible, and dying is what really made him become the iconic figure he is today. It makes me wonder if we would have even know of Custer if he had made it out of the battle alive.
In relation to today's discussion of the "victors" and how they are portrayed. I found a passage on 100 to be very interesting. Welch was discussing his visit to the Little Big Horn battle sight which was at that time known as "Custer Battle Field National Monument." The author at that time raised the question of Why is the battle field named after the loser of the battle? We learn that the field is then renamed Little Bighorn Battle field National Monument, after much controversy by state senators. I feel that this is a good example of how the "victors" of the battle we portrayed. The fact that even in 1991 ( when the battle field name was changed) and even today Custer is looked at as such a hero and iconic figure is interesting.

Killing Custer Reflection

The second chapter of the book begins to describe Custer more in depth, rather than just as the myth that he is portrayed to be through history and in American media at the time. Especially from pages 57-62, I think that Welch really drives home Custer's view of the war. To him, being commander of the Indian raids was really no more than a game. He would leave his troops to go off hunting and kept the moral down (pg 58). He was so involved in his fantasy of war being a game that he can't see reality. To him, his soldiers and the Indians, are not viewed as real people, but rather players or pawns in a game. The Civil War provided the structure of a game that he needed, with rules and etiquette. On pg 57 it says that Custer "complained that the Indians never stood and fought...He wanted them to stand and fight like men." The Indians don't follow his rules. Perhaps that is why he ultimately failed as a commander and died at the Battle of Little BIg Horn.

Killing Custer Discussion Questions

1) Where can we see Indian cruelty in today’s society?

2) What do you think the author’s motive was when writing this book?

3) Throughout history we have dismissed the Indian culture, why?

4) Chapter 1 discusses the massacre of the Marias, how did this event lead to the birth of the “Custer Myth.” Pg 46

5) When the White men seized the Black Hills in 1877, how did this effect the Indian culture both now and then?

6) Is the word wasichu used by the Indians towards the white man in a derogatory fashion? If so, do you think this title is justified?

7) What was the significance of the Indians winning the Battle of Little Big Horn? Explain for both the American culture now and then.

8) What can be denoted from the term given to General Custer by the white man as, “Boy General?”

9) Who were these people of our nation who formed statements such as “Nits make Lice?”

10) Discuss how the educational system of America has depicted and inferred the Indian Wars.

Killing Custer Reflection

In James Welch's book, "Killing Custer," I liked how straight forward the story was written, and it gave, I believe, a new perspective on the battles between White men and the Plains Indians. Opposed to the history texts and scholarly essays in which we often read, Welch's story seems to be more of an objective view on what occurred during the late 1800's in America. Indians are typically portrayed as savage, violent, and always on the attack--almost no attention is given to the culture of the Indian tribes, and how they perceived the White man coming into their land in order to control it.  Our early American ancestors and their numerous and various battles with the Plains Indians are an integral part of our National development, history, and culture that is often taught in a skewed perspective where we are not learning the whole story of our true history. In addition, the way in which history introduces past American "Heros" is intriguing due to the reality of how these men (gender bias existing) came to be known as National "heros." Many of these men in the late 1800's into the 1900's, were not close to a "hero" status, but rather used as a way to boost National morale during difficult times. It is unfortunate how we grow up to possibly admire these "heros" and see our Nation falsely. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to learn the true events that transpired and created the base for our Nation, in order to discuss the reasons why these events occurred?  Would we, as a population of Americans, be more open-minded and accepting of individuals and groups "different" from us if we were to learn about the reality of events that occurred in our past? 

Little Women Reflection

I really enjoyed reading Part 1 of Alcott’s “Little Women.” Although this novel was written well before my time I felt that it had much relevance to society today the importance of being feminine. Although the concept of femininity is a timeless one, the actual ideas incorporating the image of a feminine girl have changed. In the late 19th century feminine women were supposed to be obedient, naturally beautiful, pure and motherly. All of these characteristics are evident in Alcott’s novel and are enforced on the audience via the text. Although these ideas are still recognized, it seems as though they have transformed into images of sexy bodied women covered in make-up and in heels. Although all things change over time (the idea of femininity being no exception to the rule) it seems as though the feminine beauty today is quite the opposite of one during Alcott’s time. I must therefore ask the question, how have standards of women gone from virtuous to voluptuous?
Although Jo is my favorite character, I find Meg the most interesting in regards to the afore mentioned question. Meg concentrates very heavily on her looks and is always concerned about her image. I think that there are two possible explanations for this behavior. The first is that Meg is insecure about her family’s new financial situation. She is worried that her old friends will no longer see her as an equal. Another explanation could be that Alcott uses Meg’s character to highlight the insecurities all women face. Beauty is something highly valued in the American culture and women will go to great length to achieve it, even if that means wearing another women’s dress and showing an uncomfortable amount of skin (Meg Goes to Vanity Fair.) The title says enough itself as it includes the word VANITY. I am very happy that Alcott chose to include this concept in one of her characters because I believe insecurities and vanities are prevalent characteristics in many little women today.

Reflections on Little Women

The discussion and lecture on Little Women produceded many thoughts about gender roles and how we perceive them. Someone in discussion asked if women who read the novel when it was first published would think of Jo differently than how we think of her now. Modern readers encourage Jo because we are more receptive to her individuality and are less likely to judge her because she behaves more masculine than the girls around her. This is not to say that if Jo lived in our society she would not be criticized for her masculine behaviors; she still may receive some criticism, but our society would be less critical of her behaviors. I think that women who read the novel when it was first published would think of Jo's behavior as strange but they would secretly admire her for her courage to be an individual. She did not conform. Professor Hass mentioned that Alcott's personal experiences influenced Jo's character. This shows that not all women wanted to conform to the roles society enforced.

The gender roles were also influenced by class. I found that lady-like behavior was most important to the girls when they were at parties with wealthy individuals. They feel that they really have to be lady-like around wealthy girls who know how to behave. Jo asks Meg to watch her behavior while they are at the party. Meg is sure to raise her eyebrows when Jo steps out of line. Before they leave for the party, Jo tells her sister that she wont wear gloves because she does not hove any clean ones. Meg cannot fathom the idea that Jo would think of going without any gloves because women did not go out to these events with bear hands. This illustrates how the girls' perception of gender is influenced by class.

Discussion Questions for Little Women 1/22

Hey everyone, below are Kristen and my discussion questions for Thursday's section.

Discussion Questions:
1. What were your initial reactions to Part I of this book and why?
2. Why do you think Professor Hass had us read this text this week? (Taking into consideration the theme of the week: "Little Women and Less Virtuous Men Define an Industrial Nation")
3. This book addresses the issue of gender roles and what is considered socially proper for young men and women during this time. Therefore, let's make a list of adjectives that would describe a traditional woman and a traditional man in 19th Century New England.
4. Why do you think Alcott uses two major characters in the book, Jo and Laurie, that challenge these traditional ideas? What is general society's perception of Jo? of Laurie?
5. Since Little Women is often referred to as a guide book on how a young lady should
behave, what are some qualities that Alcott would consider ladylike and acceptable in society based on the novel? Cite specific examples?
6. Why do you think Alcott decided to make the four sisters adolescents and not four adult women? What is the benefit of having the girls be in the age bracket that they are? Consider the lessons learned so far in the novel and the transformations made by each of the girls.
7. What is the significance of showing the girls go through the process of learning a lesson?
8. Why do you think Alcott used that specific word choice for her title, "Little Women?"
9. What do you think is important about Beth's character-- is there a religious allusion?
10. Which of the four sisters would fit best in society today and why?
11. Why is this an American classic?

Reflection Post: Playing Indian and Little Women

The discussion we had on Thursday was extremely interesting to me, and I found the comments from the class important to take note of and reflect on. At the end of class, it was summed up that the beginning of our Nation as America, and its survival up to now, have been mainly due to the groups of people who were exploited and taken advantage of by the White colonists. This is a terrible reality and it is greatly unfortunate that this is what occurred. It is a reality that should not be condoned or repeated, but it is what happened--we can learn from the injustice and unfair treatment that White colonists placed on people who were considered inferior to them. However, from this realization and understanding we can hopefully move forward as a society and world power by attempting to change some of the discriminations and oppressions that still occur today (whether it be class, sex, race, religion, sexuality, etc). I feel that most people who grew up in the U.S. only learned about or heard about America being "the greatest nation," or the nation that is all-powerful and always right when they were young; this is a generalization, but these ideas of America are promoting patriotism rather than awareness and understanding of how our nation came to be, and how it has become successful and powerful. 

These emotionally charged discussions that may occur every week are important to maintain, and voicing our thoughts, feelings, and opinions are imperative to a better understanding of how certain individuals feel towards America today and towards the history of America. 

I have begun reading Part 1 of "Little Women" and I find this book completely different in its writing compared to the other books and articles we have read thus far, but the book hits on many of the issues brought up in the previous readings as well as gives a new perspective to the history of American life. I feel that this book elaborates upon the gender issues and "ideal" sex roles at this time in history. I have a very old copy of the book, but on my page 42, towards the bottom of the page, the author states that the girls often "play mother." Although I have not gotten too uch farther in the book yet to see if this phrase is elaborated on, I find it very interesting and possibly connected to the idea of "Playing Indian." These girls are putting on a disguise or taking on a role that allows them to show another part of themselves, just like the White colonists who donned Indian costume. If the role of mothers is taken on by a young girl, she will take on more responsibility, or feel authoritative in a family unit. But I want to find out more on how "Playing Indian" and "Playing Mother" are connected. What else to these girls gain from "playing mother?" It seems that "playing mother" is a source of comfort for these girls, that even if something goes wrong while acting in this role, it is not a punishable mistake because they are the "Mother."

As a women's studies and psychology major, I find the development of these girls at this time deeply intriguing and ripe for analysis. The personalities and characteristics of the girls are so different, and so is the time in which they are living. Understanding the personal, environmental, and historical context that is laid out in the book helps us to comprehend the ways in which each girl reacts, responds, and grows. Although this story of "Little Women" is a classic novel (and not the academic/scholarly works we tend to read in College) the importance of this book when it was published, as well as the events that occur within the book, I feel are imperative to seeing American Culture in a new light.

Posted by: Samantha Kolkey

test

Hello,
I made the blogger account but forgot to send my "test." My name is Amerique Philyaw and I am a sophomore majoring in Political Science and English. I look forward to reading and responding to all of your blogs.
~~Amerique Philyaw

Reflection #1:Mascots and Racism

Today in discussion we talked a lot about how Indian mascots are a form of racism. I wanted to say just a little more about this. I do believe that by using Indians as mascots it is diminishing the values and beliefs of the Native American culture. Not only is this act wrongfully imitating Native Americans, it is making a mockery of their culture. When an Indian mascot dances and jumps around during sport events, it is insulting to Native Americans. After listening in discussion today, I realize how angry and hurt Native Americans must feel.
After thinking about this topic, I researched how Native Americans really feel about their culture being used as a mascot. In 1992, the Oprah Winfrey Show was the first major talk show to allow Native Americans to openly discuss why they do not appreciate there culture being used as mascots for sports teams. They explained that they do not understand why Americans do not see the blatant conduct as racism. The Native Americans on the show had even challenged the legality of the logo of the Washington professional football team, but the judge ruled against them.
(Here is the link to the story) http://ndnnews.blogspot.com/2008/11/mascots-ignorance-and-racism-stumble.html
My last comment on this issue is that I do not believe that people’s initial thoughts are to mimic or mock Native Americans. But as time goes on, mascots end up all over tee shirts and other apparel, and the Native American culture gets turned into a mockery. There have been attempts to stop the use of such mascots, but with little success. I believe that it will take a long time before we see any change in mascots.

Test

I'm a bit late... oops. Anyway, I'm Kate McManus. I'm a sophomore athletic training major. I've never taken a class like this before but it seems interesting so far!

Tradition or Racism?: A Reflection on the Issue of Images in American Society

Tradition or Racism?:

A Reflection on the Issue of Images in American Society

Today in discussion, the issue of school mascots was brought to our attention as we were addressing the various ways in which American society has taken (mis)perceived and often stereotypical images of the natives and so-called “non-white” immigrants and used those negative images to support our political and economic structure.  The issue that we seemed to discuss frequently in class is the idea of the underlying racism and objectivism that can be found in using a culture as a mascot.  In particular, the portrayed image of the Native American in the realm of sports has recently become one of controversy as the person dawned in “Native apparel” very often acts in a way that is not true to the actual Native American culture.  I find this “tradition” as a serious problem, as it—whether or not the one doing it is aware—condones the misrepresentation of a specific culture and unfairly and wrongly portrays only the image that we, as a society, have formulated about this group of people.

Another problem that this modern-day form of “playing Indian” does is ostracize the group that is being imitated and, in a way, separating the people and the culture from everyday society.  This is to say that the act of dressing in “Indian clothes” and dancing around without taking into consideration the historical and cultural implications, sends a falsified message about the Natives while treating their culture as one of entertainment and one that can be laughed at.  Needless to say, this is not at all funny and one’s culture should not be taken so lightly, especially one that is so very much an integral part of our history as Americans.

            As a final comment, I would just like to stress the importance that lies in imagery.  So much can be said with a picture or how one portrays a specific idea, as we all know from the images in Deloria’s book that we talked about in today’s discussion.  Regardless of intentions, the idea of inaccurately pretending to be a Native American is one that is morally and unjustifiably wrong as it perpetuates particular racial stereotypes that are often times not true.

TEST

Hi everyone, my name is Derek and I am a sophomore in the Ross School of Business. I am concentrating in finance, and am deciding between a career in investment banking or trading upon graduation. I am from Kalamazoo Michigan and my interests include traveling, cars, outdoor activities, and trying anything new.

TEST

hey everyone. i am ashton and i am a junior majoring in biology. i hope to go to medical school after graduation. anythng else you want to know just ask. see you in section today!

Test

Hey everyone, My name is Jayne and I'm a junior in Psychology. I hope to one day be a social worker or a clinical psychologist. This is my first American Culture class and so far I think the things we are discussing are interesting (even if sometimes presented in a dry format--Deloria!) and I'm excited to see how the rest of the semester unfolds. See y'all tomorrow!

Discussion Questions for 1/15

Hey guys! Jayne and I are presenting on this weeks readings tomorrow in class. Here's the list of discussion questions that we will be going over. See you tomorrow!

Discussion Questions for the Lowe Article
· What is Lowe’s main argument in this piece (rather her thesis)? What specific race does Lowe use to exemplify her argument?
· How does Lowe attempt to address her argument (her 3 main points)?
· Lowe argues that there is a contradiction in America between the nation’s economic needs and its political needs concerning the immigration of Asian Americans. What are these needs and how does the United States solve the contradiction they create?
· What is racial formation? Lowe gives two definitions, one by two other scholars and her own definition. Are these definitions truly that different? If so, why? Which do you think is more accurate or more justified?
· What does Lowe attribute to the ascribed gender and sexuality of Asian men? Does this bias still exist today?
· Lowe suggests a potential double economic threat that Asia poses on the United States. What are the two economic threats?
· Lowe reveals that “new Asian immigration” stereotypes Asians as exclusively technical professionals. What does Lowe see as the truth behind this stereotype? (hint: this is as she compares Asian immigrant women to women working in Latin America and Asia)
· What does the term epistemological mean?
· Lowe attributes the continuing exclusion of Asian Americans from the political and cultural spheres to what cause?
· What does Lowe see as the role of interdisciplinary studies?
· Lowe ends the article with an optimistic feeling. What it is that she hopes will happen in the future with respect to Asian American immigration and American Studies?
· Can you think of other races or ethnic groups that have faced problems similar to those of Asian American Immigrants? (with respect to immigration laws, economics, cultural factors, etc.)
· Do you agree with Lowe’s argument? Is she justified? Why or why not?

Discussion Questions for Deloria
o What is Deloria?s thesis? What is his main argument, and how does he use historical evidence to support it?
o Think of some examples of Indian dress, dance, music, words, etc. that are commonplace in popular culture today? What are some of the reasons they might have been assimilated into use? Do they fairly use all aspects of Native American culture or do they pick and choose various aspects?
o What are some other reasons you can think of for appropriating Indian culture, for revolutionary and political reasons? For creating a national identity? For another use?
o How has the concept and practice of ?playing Indian? changed over time? How do disguises such as clothes, Indian regalia, and blackface help to alter a person?s identity? Do you think ?playing Indian? lead to any of the goals that the white Indians set out to achieve?
o If you were a Native American, how do you think you might feel seeing non-Indians dressing up and adopting aspects of your culture? Have you ever experienced someone from outside your culture borrowing parts of it (for any reason)?

Test Post

Hey everyone! My name is Tricia, I am currently a sophomore. I am planning on going into secondary education and majoring in history. I am from St. Clair Michigan which is about an hour and a half away from Ann Arbor. I am the youngest of four kids. This is the first American Culture class that I have taken, and I am exicted to learn about all the different perspectives of America and our culture. See you all Thursday!!

*test*
Hi my name is Aleis Pugia, I am a junior, and I play for the Club Water Polo team.

Test

Hi everyone!

My name is Julia and I am a junior majoring in communication studies.  This is my first American Culture class and my first time using blogger as well.   After undergrad school I may go to law school or try to go to graduate school for advertising, which is what i am really interested in.  I really enjoyed the first book we had to read for this class (Confederates in the Attic) and I am hoping I will find the rest of the class just as interesting.  See you all in class :)

Test

Hi everyone! My name is Rebecca and I'm a senior graduating in the spring. I am a psych major and am planning to work for a year once I finish undergrad and then go back to grad school. I have taken another American Culture class a few years ago and really enjoyed it, so I'm hoping for another good experience! See you all in class :)

Test

Hi everyone. My name is Adam and this is first American culture class. I am a Sophomore and a political science major. I'm looking forward to getting to know everyone and having interesting discussions in class.

TEST

Hi my name is Ariel, but I hate my name so I go by a variation of my last name; Wheels. I'm a Senior majoring in Earth Sciences (Geology). In 4 short months I will be commissioning into the Air Force; hence the uniform that you saw today in class. After graduation, I will be heading to California, about an hour north of Santa Barbara, where I will be working with satellites, rockets, and missiles. This is my first American Culture class. Some things I like to do when I'm not in class or ROTC is rock climb, go hiking, backpacking, or sit on my couch and watch movies.

Test

Hi! I'm Alex. I'm a sophomore and political science major. I'm really excited about this class, especially because I get to learn new things like how to blog!! Looking forward to sharing the semester with everyone.

TEST Post

Hi class-

My name is Samantha, or you can call me Sam. I am a senior. I am excited, overwhelmed, and nervous about the idea of graduating in 4 months. I am moving back home to Chicago to embark on a career in social work and therapy, and will be applying for a Masters in Social Work graduate program after I work for a year.  This is my first American Culture course which is refreshing because I am a double major in psychology and women's studies, so my schedule has been filled with only psych. and WS courses. Interesting things about me: I lived in Hong Kong for three years and then Sydney, Australia for three years. I have been back in the U.S. for about 10 years now, but i still travel a great deal. For spring break, I am going to Amsterdam for 6 days with some of my close friends, and I can't wait--it should be incredibly "relaxing."

Hello everyone! This is my test post. My name is Kristen and I am a first year student. An interesting fact about myself--aside from the fact shared in class today--would have to be that my red hair is natural. This may sound like an odd fact to mention, however, most people tend to assume that my hair is dyed since it's not very often that one sees a black person with red hair. Thanks and I hope everyone's semester is starting well.

test

Hi, I'm Elaine. I'm a sophomore and my major will probably be the Program in the Environment. I'm from Brighton, Michigan, just 20 miles north of Ann Arbor. I enjoy learning about American history so I'm looking forward to this semester.

Test

Hi, I'm Christine. I'm from Panama City, Florida, and I'm totally missing the weather there right now.

A little about me.......

Hi everyone,

I am Amanda and this is the first American Culture class that I have been in. I was born in Howell, MI and have two younger brothers. I am a sophomore and my major is chemical engineering. Some of my hobbies include basketball, shopping, and hanging out with friends. I am currently living in a house with five roomates, which is interesting at times. Some activities that I am involved in are SWE and the BEAR program. When I get some free time I like to sleep or catch up on my favorite TV shows. But thats just a little about me, and I am looking forward to being apart of this class and hopefully it will be a fun semester.

Hello and Welcome!

Hello everyone,

This is your discussion section's blog. Please take advantage of it. I look forward to reading all of your posts! Again, if you have not already done so, please refer to the "How To" guide on our discussion section CTools site (under resources). In addition to creating an account, this document also gives quick instructions on how to edit your profile, post an entry & how to leave a comment.

Remember, you MUST create an account and post your first *test* entry by next Thursday's discussion section. Feel free to write what you like. Some ideas include: background/biographic information, a list of hobbies, other American Culture courses you've taken, etc. Please email or visit me during my office hours if you have any questions.

I look forward to getting to know each and every one of you.

See you all in class!
-Isabel