For me, the most interesting article in this week is Duziak's Brown as a Cold War Case. As my classmates mentioned before in their comments, this article examines a connection between diplomatic concerns and domestic civil rights activities showing transnational perspective.
The notion that Duziak argues in this article is definitely provocative, but as prof. Herzberg pointed out, now I think no one can disregard transnational view point when they study civil rights movement. In this article, Duziak says that "the Cold War simutaneously harmed the movement and created an opportunity for limited reform"(41; emphasis in the original). It does not mean that the Cold War did only good things or only bad things for civil rights movement, but that there was an interaction between international thing and domestic thing. Actually, after we read this, we cannot consider domestic thing as just merely domestic. This is a significance of this article.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Eye opener
Like Denise, I found it a bit of a revelation to hear the story Robert Williams; it seems like he has been overlooked by mainstream scholars as well as the secondary educational system. Perhaps this is because of his decisions to move to countries and regimes that were (and still are) at odds with the American government - swept under the carpet, much of his work for equity and civil rights have been ignored. Williams' motivation for leaving the U.S. and seeking shelter from its enemies makes sense from a personal viewpoint - he was disgusted, alienated, and disenfranchised by a country he had fought to protect and was justified in many of his actions - why not slap the government in the face and conspire with the enemy. What I found fascinating was the irresistable draw that our country still held for Williams, especially at the end of his life. To respond to your question, Denise, I would imagine that the U.S. government felt that at this stage in his activist career Williams was less of a threat at home than abroad, and that he would be far more willing to assist the government under favorable conditions.
In Robert Self's article "To Plan Our Liberation", he makes an interesting observation on the generational differences in approach of African Americans after the war. He draws a distinction between the early civil rights leaders and the younger black power movement that followed. The first and less confrontational movement was focused on integration as the catalyst for social justice and change that manifested itself as the civil rights movement; he argues that the Panthers and their less-integrative figures like Newton and Carmichael were actually articulating a new tradition born of a younger generation that had lost patience with the limitations of non-violence, and were willing to take a more active stance on securing their equity, rights, and jobs.
In Robert Self's article "To Plan Our Liberation", he makes an interesting observation on the generational differences in approach of African Americans after the war. He draws a distinction between the early civil rights leaders and the younger black power movement that followed. The first and less confrontational movement was focused on integration as the catalyst for social justice and change that manifested itself as the civil rights movement; he argues that the Panthers and their less-integrative figures like Newton and Carmichael were actually articulating a new tradition born of a younger generation that had lost patience with the limitations of non-violence, and were willing to take a more active stance on securing their equity, rights, and jobs.
Tyson's article on Robert F. Williams
I am not sure how many were like me and was unaware of other civil rights leaders like Robert F. Williams. Tyson uses Williams’ life to show the necessity of seeing the non-violent civil rights movement and the Black Power movement as coming from similar circumstances and neither one being more acceptable than the other. Going beyond that, I was curious to know how other felt about the time that Williams spent in Cuba, North Vietnam, and China. It is understandable that the government would make concessions to Williams if he had vital information about the people he had been interacting with, but to let him back into the country and give him a position at a University? What makes the government so sure that he was not influenced by what he experienced since he technically was with the enemy? I am not personally trying to pass judgment that it was wrong, just merely trying to think outside of the box.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Civil Rights Activism
This weeks articles have brought to the forefront certain questions about how historians should view the civil rights movement. The first is clearly mentioned in the articles, and that is the problem of competing theories on the best course of action. The various approaches that encompassed the civil rights movement are usually glossed over for a more homogeneous and less controversial view. To do that, the emphasis is placed on Martin Luther King Jr. and the approach of non-violence and to a lesser degree, the legal works of the NAACP. The influences of Cold War rhetoric, or instances of violence explained in the articles however plainly contradict this image. In addition, the fault for a lack of federal backing is placed on southern democrats although we know a northern suburb was just as racially exclusive and still had a political voice. Do these omissions indicate an attempt to gloss over the culpability of the entire United States in racial discrimination? Or is this the more unintentional creation of a valorous peaceful protagonist group against a racist federal antagonist group? What does this potential alteration of the civil rights movement mean for people today?
"To Plan Our Liberation"
I thought I would comment on the Best article as my quick look over the other posts did not mention it often. I found Best's discussion of the Black Panther Party and the Model Cities program quite interesting. Cobb and other leaders emphasis on concrete political objectives in addition to so-called "power-grabs" was necessary for the inclusion of the overlooked part of the Oakland area population and even though they were essentially unsuccessful, Best shows that they helped to change the Oakland political culture of the black population. The other thing I found interesting was a comment by Best at the end of the article. He commented that the concrete poltical stances that the Black Panther Party established in Oakland were important but that the Panthers were also "rightly taken to task for the occasional emptiness of black power rhetoric." I know little about the historiography of the Black Panther movement but I was wondering if this is a fair assessment? To me political rhetoric is usually empty and often considering topics of much less practical importance. I was just wondering what others thought about this comment.
Brown and the Cold War
When I read Brown as a Cold War case I cannot help but think about a group activity we did in class a few weeks ago. All of us had some interest group to promote and we tried to paint our arguments for certain concessions as a benefit to all. For example, factories need to be clean because sick workers cost companies more money than healthy workers. The real reason factories should be clean is because workers shouldn’t have to worry about getting life-threatening illnesses when they go to work, but that’s not how we argued it in class. Brown as a Cold War case seems very similar to that class. We know that segregation and racism really isn’t right, but it doesn’t really hurt your average white male voter. On the other hand, if segregation makes America look bad in the eyes of newly independent Third World Nations, then it really is hurting everybody and we better do something about it. If getting rid of segregation is fighting communism, then it’s much harder to argue against. Sending Louis Armstrong overseas only does so much to fight communism. I just found that connection to the previous classes interesting, however I’m not really sure if it is meaningful.
Civil Rights and the Cold War
I had never before thought of the Civil Rights movement as related to the Cold War. In the Brown as a Cold War Case article, it states "Cold War concerns provided a motive beyond equality itself for the federal government including the president and the courts, to act on civil rights when it did" (34). In this article there is also the idea that because of the Cold War the worlds eyes were focused on the US which made all racial decisions have more of an impact. This is a very interesting idea. It's one that could probably be explored further. It made me wonder what the true driving factors behind the court decision were.
In Who Is The Real Ambassador, Von Eschen brings up the idea that the Korean war made American policy makers afraid fear that racism would lead people to the Soviet Union. Because of this people such as Paul Robeson were greatly feared. The article goes on to say how the State Department desperately wanted to fix the perception of American when it came to racism. I really enjoyed this new idea, perhaps because it brought something new to the table.
In Who Is The Real Ambassador, Von Eschen brings up the idea that the Korean war made American policy makers afraid fear that racism would lead people to the Soviet Union. Because of this people such as Paul Robeson were greatly feared. The article goes on to say how the State Department desperately wanted to fix the perception of American when it came to racism. I really enjoyed this new idea, perhaps because it brought something new to the table.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Discussion Questions – Civil Rights Movement
History Questions:
1. How did the Cold War both help and hinder the civil rights movement? (Especially pertinent is the discussion in “Robert F. Williams”, “Brown as a Cold War Case” and “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” articles) Did the NAACP benefit from disassociating itself from communism? How did black power groups fare? Also, how did the U.S. government use Cold War ideology to its advantage?
2.In the “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” article, it becomes apparent that the U.S. government wanted to control and reshape its public image abroad, using famous athletes and musicians such as the Harlem Globetrotters and Louis Armstrong. Armstrong plays a central role in the article with his critique of Eisenhower, but I wonder how much agency Armstrong has? Is he “selling out”, actually making a statement, or is his role a bit more ambiguous?
Historiography Questions:
1. What is the benefit of incorporating an international focus within the discussion of civil rights? Again, there are several discussion points that can be brought up in the “Brown as a Cold War Case” and “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” articles.
2.Sources related question: Regarding the “Who’s the Real Ambassador?” article, is there enough of an international voice given to other countries as most of the sources come from the U.S. State Department?
More Random Thoughts:
One of the common themes was it is important to not read the civil rights movement as a homogenized experience. Too often, I think that people are taught the MLK version of the civil rights movement with Malcolm X and the Black Panthers sprinkled in without realizing the intricacies of the movement. (The Tyson article appropriately points out that there are definite similarities, but makes clear that each is unique.)For example, Dan importantly brings attention to the fact that Dr. King’s own guards were armed, despite his penchant for nonviolence. He also makes note of the fact that these civil rights organization played a different role in their communities. This brings up an important issue: Is the fight for civil rights a racial or economic issue? We started talking about it last week, but these four articles might make for another discussion. Within the blog, it was also suggested that the voices of other groups could be added to enhance the history and I agree. (i.e. Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, illegal aliens, etc.)
On a different note, I liked how the authors used the Cold War as a lens to analyze the overall movement – I found this to be a very provocative tool. It also helps to explain in my research why being labeled a communist dramatically affected the status of civil rights organizations. And in case you are wondering the man in the picture is Meadowlark Lemon…
civil rights/black power questions
According to Jeffrey Ogbar, author of Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity, two crucial components of Black Power are black self-determination and black pride. Where do these components manifest themselves in the assigned readings?
In his examination of Black Power’s tangible contribution to the political landscape in Oakland, California during the late 1960s and into the late 1970s, Robert Self makes no mention of the Black Panthers’ “Survival Programs”—free breakfast programs for children, free health clinics, correctional facility busing programs—as a significant factor in building the party’s political influence. These programs were essential components to Panther efforts to reach the community in a meaningful way. To what degree did Black Power depend on the mobilization of average African Americans to gain a foothold in the consciousness of the nation?
Considering that civil rights activists such as King often employed armed guards along with the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was constantly embroiled in, and largely dependent on, violent confrontation, can, as Tyson believes, “nonviolent interracialism, rather than Black Power, [be considered] the anomaly” (544)?
Also take into account the point at which Robert Williams’s and King’s respective beliefs in self-defense overlap, as pointed out by Tyson (561).
Absent Cold War geopolitical concerns would Brown have been decided in favor of desegregation in the first place? If so, how much later than 1954?
In his examination of Black Power’s tangible contribution to the political landscape in Oakland, California during the late 1960s and into the late 1970s, Robert Self makes no mention of the Black Panthers’ “Survival Programs”—free breakfast programs for children, free health clinics, correctional facility busing programs—as a significant factor in building the party’s political influence. These programs were essential components to Panther efforts to reach the community in a meaningful way. To what degree did Black Power depend on the mobilization of average African Americans to gain a foothold in the consciousness of the nation?
Considering that civil rights activists such as King often employed armed guards along with the fact that the Civil Rights Movement was constantly embroiled in, and largely dependent on, violent confrontation, can, as Tyson believes, “nonviolent interracialism, rather than Black Power, [be considered] the anomaly” (544)?
Also take into account the point at which Robert Williams’s and King’s respective beliefs in self-defense overlap, as pointed out by Tyson (561).
Absent Cold War geopolitical concerns would Brown have been decided in favor of desegregation in the first place? If so, how much later than 1954?
Cold War
Perhaps this makes me incompetent, but I have never thought of the Civil Rights Movement in terms of the Cold War. The connections all four articles make concerning the Civil Rights Movement and the Cold War are very clear, however - even when that is not what the article intended, like Robert Self's article. Mary Dudziak presents a convincing case that Brown v. Board was a civil rights decision handed down because it was sanctioned by a federal government that was trying to improve its image abroad. For states choosing between the systems of the US and the USSR, race inequality in the US was a serious blemish on the record of the US. To provide the world with more evidence than a written court case, Penny Von Eschen argues that the US promoted the international travel of certain famous black people in order to further enhance the international image of the United States. The Cold War plays a different role in the other two articles. In his argument that aims to bring Robert Williams back from the fringes of the Civil Rights Movement and reconcile the two, Timothy Tyson paints the other power of the Cold War as a dangerous supporter of civil rights movements in the United States that were not receiving the necessary support in the United States. Williams was forced to flee to Cuba from the FBI, a serious Cold War enemy at the time. The role of the Cold War is not as apparent in Self's article, though it is surely present. In Cohen, the role of citizen consumer's had transformed by the 1950's and she argues that one could excercise their citizenship by engaging with the American values of capitalism and consumerism. During the 1950s in Oakland, the reader sees a similar story in Oakland that Sugrue presents for Detroit - white flight and a poor urban area. With citizen consumers suburbanizing and jobs headed elsewhere, the black power movement arises from uneven economic development, not as a response to the "failing" strategies of the Civil Rights Movement.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
questions for 3/30
First my questions for this week.
1) A theme from some of this week's readings seem to link the Civil Rights Movement with Cold War. Do you feel that the author's are on to something or are they linking seperate movements which might have had a few similar ideals? Were foriegn countries so concerned about our treatment of African Americans and if yes, were there not just as many if not more examples of whites resisting integration?
2) Another idea from the readings dealt with the militarization of the Black Panthers and other African American groups. Yet the authors rarely mention how these actions changed the opinions of non-violent blacks or middle class whites. Also white opinions are absent from almost every article or book we have read on this issue, Cohen talks about how some business owners were coerced into supporting full rights due to economic worries. Other then for this reason, how were these movements able to gain acceptance into public opinions?
Here are some other thoughts I had while reading these articles.
Dudziak
Do you agree with the idea on page 34 that our segregation affected how other countries’ viewed our commitment to democracy? Is it possible to view this idea as one of the contributing factors that allowed for the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board? Were the major European and Asian societies all living in a post-racial world, and if not would the opinions of the minor nations be enough to influence the Court’s decision? In my high school the unit on the Cold War was taught prior to another separate unit on the Civil Rights Movement. Is combining these units possible, did the rest of the world really care about the struggles of inner city and rural African Americans? Does Self fully understand how States currently makes curriculum changes? How has the Cold War changed how we describe our political and economic systems? Has the combination of capitalism and democracy blinded us from fully understanding the events of the Cold War and beyond?
Self
After this reading and the Segure book last week, what do you think about the government’s urban redevelopment plans? We they putting new money into the community to encourage growth or were the construction plans created without thinking of the neighborhood residents? Were these projects built in order to raise the standards and neighborhood quality for the African American residents or to create newer more expensive pockets for whites to move into? Do the highways make the area more accessible or easier for suburban residents to avoid?
While reading the section on the black Panthers, I was left feeling like once again a prime opportunity was wasted. As I read more about the inequalities faced by African Americans in cities across the US, it is understandable why such a movement would begin. Yet as I reflect upon what the outcome of the Panthers was and how they continue to affect our beliefs, they seem to have failed. I agree with their stance that they should take pride in being African and took an initiative to make being black a proud idea. The promotion of public engagement as a means to change through voting, running candidates, and using their buying power to force change all encouraged African Americans to work together as well as forced their white counterparts to recognize black power as a force but politically and economically. However, I cannot explain where the fascination with guns and violence came from. It seems counterproductive to me to be calling for violence or to carry weapons when your group is being segregated against. While there were plenty of acts of violence for African Americans to want to protect themselves against, it seems to me a better example was set forth by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. promoting non-violence. According to him eventually the world would see the images and it would not be the blacks that looked non-human. By not only being seen but also actually promoting guns and violence, it would seem that only public reaction would be negative. When so many people already view you as threatening, carrying guns does not help your image. Today in urban environments there continues to be a fascination with guns and the “hood” lifestyle whether they are white or black. Do you see these ideas as comparable to the struggles of the poor urban African Americans or is it hindering their chances of support? How does public opinions about appropriate clothing, music, speech, and safety change how we view these people?
Tyson
Tyson explains how the populist movement and formation of the Black Panthers lead to a radicalization of the Civil Rights Movement. Throughout his article he often uses examples that include Africans showing force with guns and weapons. Were these events as successful as he gives them credit for? Tyson seems to exclude the work of MLK and others from his article. Was this on purpose or does he simply not believe that these individual’s had as much of an impact on actually gaining rights? Would either of the two movements have been able to survive on their own, or did MLK need the Panthers urban activism as much as they needed his speaking and non-violent protests?
Eschen
In this piece the author talks at length about how the use of prominent African American athletes, musicians, and artists helped the US propaganda achieve great support for the country abroad. While these new art forms helped promote the idea of America as a new, cool, and young place to be across the world did it have any positive effects for Africans living in the US? Were African Americans being given credit for their achievements or was their color ignored while their efforts were described as American. Remember the black rhythm and blues music did not become socially acceptable and mainstream until after white artists covered the songs, the Harlem Globetrotters initially were composed of an all white team, and despite the efforts of African American athletes they were oftentimes barred from competing at the highest levels. Would we still hear of the heroics of Joe Louis and Jesse Owens had their efforts not been used as propaganda against the Germans and Soviets?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Political agency
Although our reading guide has ample questions for discussion, I will persist in the face of potential redundancy to throw some more into the ring.
Historically: (With apologies to Colin for flogging the dead horse of the FHA)
Sugrue makes it clear that "local elected officials controlled the implementation of federal policies" (60) like homeowners benefits under the GI Bill of Rights and loans throught the FHA, which translated into discrimination and disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Detroit over many decades after WWII. What was the status of the political agency of Af./Ams in Detroit? The key to this question is that elected officials need to be elected to hold office. Certainly there were enough votes out there to make an impact on the elected officials responsible for the discriminatory actions of these locally controlled Federal agencies. Was this a product of voter apathy, lack of organization, unfamiliarity with government programs, or some unknown quantity?
Historiographically: Sugrue's choice of a case study for this topic is a wise one - as Melissa and others have said, it provides far greater specificity and detail than a more "macro" approach. Within his more focused approach, I am left wondering why Sugrue limits his discussion of political activism on the part of African Americans in Detroit to the broad efforts of the NAACP rather than exploring at the grassroots level the political agendas and voting habits of his targetted study?
Historically: (With apologies to Colin for flogging the dead horse of the FHA)
Sugrue makes it clear that "local elected officials controlled the implementation of federal policies" (60) like homeowners benefits under the GI Bill of Rights and loans throught the FHA, which translated into discrimination and disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Detroit over many decades after WWII. What was the status of the political agency of Af./Ams in Detroit? The key to this question is that elected officials need to be elected to hold office. Certainly there were enough votes out there to make an impact on the elected officials responsible for the discriminatory actions of these locally controlled Federal agencies. Was this a product of voter apathy, lack of organization, unfamiliarity with government programs, or some unknown quantity?
Historiographically: Sugrue's choice of a case study for this topic is a wise one - as Melissa and others have said, it provides far greater specificity and detail than a more "macro" approach. Within his more focused approach, I am left wondering why Sugrue limits his discussion of political activism on the part of African Americans in Detroit to the broad efforts of the NAACP rather than exploring at the grassroots level the political agendas and voting habits of his targetted study?
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sugrue and Buffalo
One thing I noticed while reading the blog posts is that not many references to Buffalo were made. To be honest, I was surprised by this. Although my post may stray away from the text in some respects by focusing more on Buffalo, while reading Sugrue, I could not help but think about the multitude of ways that this text was essentially telling the history of Buffalo, just as it was Detroit. Not only is this sort of urban comparison part of Sugrue's larger historical project (as other posts have pointed out by speaking to the value of his methodology of a case study) , but there seems to be many similarities that are both historical and contemporary between Buffalo and Detroit.
Not only do both Buffalo and Detroit have a decaying (if not totally dead) industrial history, both cities rank among the poorest and most segregated cities in the United States.
Poorest - http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/09/28/daily18.html
Most Segregated - http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2002/12/16/story3.html
This makes the postwar urban, political, social, and racial histories being told by Sugrue even more applicable to us as scholars because it relates to the environment with which we inhabit.
Hopefully these comparisons can come up in class discussion, because it is an aspect of the text that warrants more exploration.
In addition, I thought that Chapters 7 and 8 was perhaps the most engaging of the work, and what was especially rewarding for me was Sugrue's exploration of the cultural and economic geography and spatial metaphors of urban segregation. Again these ideas related back to Buffalo as in our own Rust Belt City we see space, segregation, urban planning and race weaving together to create a spatial pattern of class and race based segregation.
Despite the many valuable contributions that this text was making, I did however think physical design and urban planning could have had a stronger place in his case study. The physical makeup of space, often influenced by a process of state sponsored design also factors directly into urban segregation.
Relating back to the comparison's with Buffalo, one example of the physical aspects (which is not as much of a focus in Sugrue's text as cultural, political and social factors) of segregation in Buffalo is the creation of Route 33 also known as the Kensington Expressway. Built in stages form the 1920s until the most recent renovations in the 1970s this route was originally built to connect the urban center of Buffalo with the suburbs, Buffalo’s airport and ultimately Rochester, NY. Yet due to the implementation of a subsurface design, in which the expressway is dug into the earth surface and traffic flows at a lowered level, the route became a geographic obstacle of human urban interactions. The subsurface design can be seen in the following images. This design drove segregation and urban decay to the east of Buffalo and allowed the areas to the west and north of the Expressway to be blocked from the city’s growing low income neighborhoods. Whether or not this was an intended effect could be debated, but the results were fairly clear after the expressways completion. This expressway essentially became a physical barrier in Buffalo with which to divide based on race and physically enforce white fear of neighborhood encroachment.
Not only do both Buffalo and Detroit have a decaying (if not totally dead) industrial history, both cities rank among the poorest and most segregated cities in the United States.
Poorest - http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/09/28/daily18.html
Most Segregated - http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2002/12/16/story3.html
This makes the postwar urban, political, social, and racial histories being told by Sugrue even more applicable to us as scholars because it relates to the environment with which we inhabit.
Hopefully these comparisons can come up in class discussion, because it is an aspect of the text that warrants more exploration.
In addition, I thought that Chapters 7 and 8 was perhaps the most engaging of the work, and what was especially rewarding for me was Sugrue's exploration of the cultural and economic geography and spatial metaphors of urban segregation. Again these ideas related back to Buffalo as in our own Rust Belt City we see space, segregation, urban planning and race weaving together to create a spatial pattern of class and race based segregation.
Despite the many valuable contributions that this text was making, I did however think physical design and urban planning could have had a stronger place in his case study. The physical makeup of space, often influenced by a process of state sponsored design also factors directly into urban segregation.
Relating back to the comparison's with Buffalo, one example of the physical aspects (which is not as much of a focus in Sugrue's text as cultural, political and social factors) of segregation in Buffalo is the creation of Route 33 also known as the Kensington Expressway. Built in stages form the 1920s until the most recent renovations in the 1970s this route was originally built to connect the urban center of Buffalo with the suburbs, Buffalo’s airport and ultimately Rochester, NY. Yet due to the implementation of a subsurface design, in which the expressway is dug into the earth surface and traffic flows at a lowered level, the route became a geographic obstacle of human urban interactions. The subsurface design can be seen in the following images. This design drove segregation and urban decay to the east of Buffalo and allowed the areas to the west and north of the Expressway to be blocked from the city’s growing low income neighborhoods. Whether or not this was an intended effect could be debated, but the results were fairly clear after the expressways completion. This expressway essentially became a physical barrier in Buffalo with which to divide based on race and physically enforce white fear of neighborhood encroachment.
Sugrue thoughts
The coupling of Sugrue with Cohen's book from last week really help to build on one another. They both find the progress of industrial urban decline even before WWII. The strongest connection I noticed was the connection between the ideal of homeownership as being an integral ideal of American citizenship. In fact, Sugrue uses this point to argue that much of the violence and discrimination by homogeneous white suburban communities can't be explain away as simply racism but needs to be viewed as political action. While Cohen and Sugrue agree that the government played a large role in the desirability of homeownership, Sugrue expounds on its effects on the urban black population which were creating for themselves the same ideals with unfortunate results (72).
Another parallel between the two is a special consideration of the efforts of mostly suburban areas attempting to maintain a handle on local control of their neighborhoods. For Cohen and Sugrue this helped to perpetuate racial tension and segregation. One interesting point that Sugrue makes though is again in his complex analysis of the urban crisis. The plight of the poor urban black population for Sugrue can't be boiled down to simply racism/discrimination. Whites--especially working class whites--were vying for a certain "identification survival" (as they were also being displaced by de-industrialization of the cities) which helped to intensify their political diplomatic and violent protests of racial integration.
Another parallel between the two is a special consideration of the efforts of mostly suburban areas attempting to maintain a handle on local control of their neighborhoods. For Cohen and Sugrue this helped to perpetuate racial tension and segregation. One interesting point that Sugrue makes though is again in his complex analysis of the urban crisis. The plight of the poor urban black population for Sugrue can't be boiled down to simply racism/discrimination. Whites--especially working class whites--were vying for a certain "identification survival" (as they were also being displaced by de-industrialization of the cities) which helped to intensify their political diplomatic and violent protests of racial integration.
Politics
I wanted to see more politics as Colin said in his post. Were the FHA underwriting rules written in a discriminatory manner? Who supported it and why? They obviously operated that way but what was the intent? It seems that it could be argued that the discriminatory nature of the FHA was based in its implementation and not in its creation. Although this was already quite long it would have been interesting to see what the impact was of George Romney when he was Gov. as he had strong support for ending segregated housing.
Segmentation
I think the idea's that Dan brings up are of particular importance to the text as well as to the development of class and race within post WWII consumer capitalism. Lets take a look first at the examples of housing segregation and black middle and upper class mobility. As we've already pointed out on the blog, "black newcomers to formerly all-white neighborhoods had views shaped by the "politics of respectability (205)."" Which resulted in some "black pioneers" in white neighborhoods distancing themselves from the inner city African-American communities. Sugrue, makes it a point to tell us that much of this distancing was ideological, that the restaurant owners, a young affluent couple, a lawyer and his law student wife, all moved to distance themselves from "vulgar" people that were invading their once "respectable" neighborhoods (205-206). These individuals identified with belonging to the middle class, or as Sugrue states, "shared a common set of aspirations with white middle-class Detroiters," rather than identify with other African-Americans (206). The result was that middle class bourgeois ideology was able to segment the African American populace. These class divisions within Detroit's black population made the work of black reform, as well as revolutionary groups, near impossible (12). Within Sugrue's work it is easy to see the result of segmentation; whether it is the segmentation of different black workers or the segmentation of white industrial workers from black industrial workers (through the use of cultural conservatism and racism), the result is the creation of conflict between groups of individuals who, if they were able to cooperate, could subvert the standard capitalist paradigm.
Where's the National Politics?
1. I've read several different iterations of this story, and all place plenty of blame on HOLC and FHA. But none of them ever get into the political process by which they were created. It seems insufficient to me to just say that they made the decisions they made because of "racism." Sure, it was racist, but what did that racism consist of? What was the debate about their creation like? Were the racist aspects of their programs part of the cost of getting them established, or did they just go unquestioned?
2. How is it that Congress was able to direct so much defense spending to the south and west? I've seen this discussed elsewhere, too, but have never seen a discussion of how the politics worked. What was the non-south/west congressional majority doing at the time? Asleep at the wheel?
3. And now, more Donna Reed.
class conflict
I found Sugrue’s chapter “Class Status, and Residence: The Changing Geography of Black Detroit” an important addition to his overall study. The subchapter “Status and Conflict” at the end of the chapter particularly stands out. He points out that many black newcomers to formerly all-white neighborhoods “sought to disprove negative racial stereotypes, and did so by distancing themselves physically and symbolically from the African American poor” (205). This is a significant point and worth further investigation. While a detailed study of the tendency for many middle- and upper-class African Americans to distance themselves from the “lower classes” falls largely outside of Sugrue’s study, I feel he could have expanded his discussion a bit. The class conflict that Sugrue mentions is still a contentious topic today. Michael Eric Dyson’s Is Bill Cosby Right? :Or has the Black Middle Class Lost its Mind candidly deals with this issue as it manifests itself today. Dyson views concentrated poverty and institutional racism as major factors stifling poor African Americans’ chances for upward mobility, rather than some ostensible moral or character based flaws within the poor black community. Just as many whites within Sugrue’s text conveniently overlook the obstacles facing poor African Americans—whether government sponsored discrimination or community outrage over a “black invasion”—many upwardly mobile African Americans unfortunately buy into popular stereotypes of poor blacks. Sugrue does well to point out, however, that many middle- and upper-class African Americans stuck with their communities.
Sugrue
I agree with everyone else that making this a case study strengthened his book. I thought he made strong arguments and was able to back them up with many examples. His discussion on the housing situation in the first part of the book I found to be very interesting and I really enjoyed how he included the stories of different people's experiences with the housing situation. He also worked in different angles and perspectives from William Burton, the greedy landlord who overcharged his tenants for rent (54), to Charles Johnson, the WWII veteran who returned looking for housing but kept getting denied (58). Because it was a history focused on one city, it was more interesting for me to read. There was more specificity with his arguments and examples as opposed to a national history where it'd be a little more general. I found it interesting his idea of a "spatial definition" of blacks and whites determined by the differences of living situations as well as how race was both political as it was social (9). Furthermore, the idea of homeownership representing identity that he discusses on 213 was something I never thought about. However it does make sense that owning a house would represent success since, as he explains, "homeownership required a significant financial sacrifice". In addition, this helped explain why African Americans were having trouble living in certain neighborhoods. Overall, I found it to be a very good read.
Some Thoughts on Sugrue
Sugrue's work had so many things in it that I have to agree with Megan and agree that making it a case study as opposed to a national study was a very smart move. While reading about the lay offs and factories closing I came across a quote that stuck with me "Unemployment is not a crime, it is a social ill full of hardships, set-backs, anxieties, needs and sacrifices which would be lauded under any other circumstances" (152). I almost feel that this quote can sum up a large portion of the book. It contains within it, though not naming specifically, the problems people faced. The housing crisis, deindustialization, etc. While i do not think race is included in the quote I still found it expressive. (As did Sugrue obviously since he stated "No words could better describe the failed promise of postwar Detroit" (152).)
Another thing I fenjoyed was the way Sugrue would interweave races in the chapters. He would have a large amount about the unions and factory workers and then move right on to the Urban League. He managed to bring in many different people and keep them all relevant to each chapter.
Another thing I fenjoyed was the way Sugrue would interweave races in the chapters. He would have a large amount about the unions and factory workers and then move right on to the Urban League. He managed to bring in many different people and keep them all relevant to each chapter.
Case Study
From the very first pages of Sugrue, it is evident his choice of making the work a case study was not only wise but proved to provide a clearer argument and landscape than a generalized national study would have. He notes that he is one of very few scholars tackling the changing urban landscape in the post-war world, but invites others to build on his arguments for other cities like Detroit - Toledo, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Buffalo. Detroit not only serves as the model city for the development of the rust belt, it provides a rare racial map that is mostly black/white and therefore is also useful for the study of black/white race relations and inequalities. However, one of the greatest strengths of Sugrue's work is there is no question of what any category of actor's influence and position was in Sugrue's narrative. The reader obviously becomes most familiar with the plight of black men in Detroit, but other people do not go unmentioned and all play an central role in the narrative. White women entered the workforce during the war but black women with families to support were less successful. Rich white men ran the auto companies, whose flight from suburbia caused the unemployment of white middle class men. Working class white men suffered as well from automation and the federal funds that had previously aided Detroit that then moved to the Sunbelt. Black men faced hiring and housing discrimination while the Detroit Urban League won victories for black women in the workplace. Not a single actor is left out of the narrative. The federal and local governments interact as well as a representative from almost all of the populations inhabiting Detroit at the time.
Missed Opportunity
As I was reading Sugrue’s work, I kept thinking about something that was brought up in our discussion of Cohen last week. If I am not mistaken, it was Dan who suggested that the reinforcement of the racial systems in the post-war years was a missed opportunity to change the situation that African Americans were in. In reading specifically about Detroit, it would seem that the same idea of a missed opportunity could be applied. One might think that it would be easier to implement substantial policy change on the city rather than the national level, but as Sugrue shows it is as impossible. It was not feasible because of the discriminatory laws and the actions of certain people in government and the community, much like we learned last week from Cohen. Everything from the discriminatory bank policies that were implemented (34) to government red-lining (38) and job discrimination kept the circumstances of African Americans as they were. Overall, it really does seem like a missed opportunity, but that is being too ideal. These factors like housing and labor discrimination were too full of vitality in the War and immediate post-war years when something could have been done.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Discussion Questions – Origins of the Urban Crisis
History Questions:
1.What is Sugre’s definition of race? Keep in mind that Sugre argues that concepts of whiteness and blackness (race) assumed a material dimension that was not affected solely by culture. (234) In turn, how does this definition shape the narrative? (i.e. housing, employment, education)
2.According to Sugre, in what ways was the ghetto not just a physical construct, but an ideological one? (229)
Historiography Questions:
1.What is the value of looking at workers and not consumers as an analytical lens for urban centers? (Cohen v. Sugre) Remember that both also show that one of the biggest points of contention between whites and blacks is the location of the physical home.
2.Is it possible to write a history of a Rust Belt city without making it solely a narrative of decline? Should historians go out of their way to find token positives or is it a necessary part of the profession to show “partial successes”? (i.e. Detroit’s Urban League fighting for black “firsts” in jobs as described on page 167)
3.Why are historians discouraged from making action plans to remedy issues (i.e. poverty and discrimination)? Sugre does offer a few subtle ideas such as the system of seniority which may have helped blacks retain their jobs on page 103, but does not make a concerted push for a plan to remedy this. Is it enough to analyze the situation and draw connections to the present or should historians go further – again, how does one address urban decline and enact meaningful change?
Random Thoughts:
Like Cohen’s book from the previous week, I found the countless examples of racism which demonstrated that the northern U.S. was not immune to acts of discrimination to be especially poignant. What I really liked from Sugre’s analysis was how he showed the stratification of Detroit not only by race, but through class. For example, the placement of blacks within the different sections of the city (due to wealth, status, employment, etc.) and the varying levels “support” for civil rights among the different classes of white society highlighted the various factors shaping people’s perceptions. Lastly, how does this history differ from that of Buffalo? Or is it similar?
1.What is Sugre’s definition of race? Keep in mind that Sugre argues that concepts of whiteness and blackness (race) assumed a material dimension that was not affected solely by culture. (234) In turn, how does this definition shape the narrative? (i.e. housing, employment, education)
2.According to Sugre, in what ways was the ghetto not just a physical construct, but an ideological one? (229)
Historiography Questions:
1.What is the value of looking at workers and not consumers as an analytical lens for urban centers? (Cohen v. Sugre) Remember that both also show that one of the biggest points of contention between whites and blacks is the location of the physical home.
2.Is it possible to write a history of a Rust Belt city without making it solely a narrative of decline? Should historians go out of their way to find token positives or is it a necessary part of the profession to show “partial successes”? (i.e. Detroit’s Urban League fighting for black “firsts” in jobs as described on page 167)
3.Why are historians discouraged from making action plans to remedy issues (i.e. poverty and discrimination)? Sugre does offer a few subtle ideas such as the system of seniority which may have helped blacks retain their jobs on page 103, but does not make a concerted push for a plan to remedy this. Is it enough to analyze the situation and draw connections to the present or should historians go further – again, how does one address urban decline and enact meaningful change?
Random Thoughts:
Like Cohen’s book from the previous week, I found the countless examples of racism which demonstrated that the northern U.S. was not immune to acts of discrimination to be especially poignant. What I really liked from Sugre’s analysis was how he showed the stratification of Detroit not only by race, but through class. For example, the placement of blacks within the different sections of the city (due to wealth, status, employment, etc.) and the varying levels “support” for civil rights among the different classes of white society highlighted the various factors shaping people’s perceptions. Lastly, how does this history differ from that of Buffalo? Or is it similar?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
consumers republic
As I read the Cohen book my first thoughts revolved around how Cohen defines how corporations and individuals interact. Does Cohen focus to much on the business side of the transaction? Can the phenomena of mass consumption and consumerism be fully explained simply through looking at how corporations used advertising and products? What is the role of the consumer, are their tastes the results of the products offered or do they influence what is sold? For this I am thinking about how so many products are released that never gain popularity despite large advertising campaigns, were they simply failed ideas or does the consumer ultimately decide what is bought or sold?
As I continued to read the book, I could not help but think about what we can learn from this story to help solve our current problem. If Cohen were to update the epilogue, how would she view the current policies and bailouts. How has the recent shift from government subsidies to the people to subsidies to corporations affected their relationship? Are businesses actually to big to fail? Throughout this book it seemed as if higher wages for workers fueled their desires to purchase more products. Businesses had to continually evolve in order to stay in business and the hope of higher profits caused corporations to need to continually readjust and change business models. Do bailouts take away the incentive to change and evolve leading to a stale economy?
Finally I was most struck by the section about specialized products and advertising. I understand that children would want to view different products then their parents yet I felt as if Cohen was making this practice seem more successful then it is in reality. The cartoon on pg 300 seems to sum up my feelings. While selective advertising may show me more products that are interesting to me, the idea that these ads shape my identity seem farfetched. Look around the classroom, we are all of similar ages living in the same city, yet many different styles and tastes are displayed by all. Are we more tied to tastes from our race, age, and sex? Or can we look for other examples such as parents, values, and personal views? I began thinking about this as I watched a video on hulu where I was asked to pick which advertisement I wanted to watch. Would the statistics of this survey follow what Cohen claims or are there other factors that need to be considered?
Monday, March 15, 2010
Discussion Questions
History: In Cohen’s chapter on reconversion, she explains the GI Bill and the potential that it had to make the lives of the returning veterans better. She also explains the negative aspects, like the discrimination that was inherent in its implementation for many veterans and non-veterans. For me, this is a key difference, if not the key difference, between the postwar of WWII and WWI, despite the negatives that Cohen described. Was the passing of the GI Bill vital for the creation of the Consumer Republic? Would the post-war prosperity of second half of the 20th century have occurred without these government measures?
Historiography: My original historiography question intended to explore what Richard set out in his history question with the use of New Jersey as a place for specific examples. So, I have instead decided to go back to a topic that I posed with the Tomes book regarding gender. Gender roles are one solidly discussed aspect of this book, as is race. I do not say the role of women exclusively because it was noted by Cohen that male roles did change as well. How important are gender roles to the making and sustaining of the Consumer Republic? Is there enough, not enough, too much emphasis on this aspect of the story by Cohen? To put it a different way, could another historian write the history of the consumer republic without incorporating gendered ideas?
Historiography: My original historiography question intended to explore what Richard set out in his history question with the use of New Jersey as a place for specific examples. So, I have instead decided to go back to a topic that I posed with the Tomes book regarding gender. Gender roles are one solidly discussed aspect of this book, as is race. I do not say the role of women exclusively because it was noted by Cohen that male roles did change as well. How important are gender roles to the making and sustaining of the Consumer Republic? Is there enough, not enough, too much emphasis on this aspect of the story by Cohen? To put it a different way, could another historian write the history of the consumer republic without incorporating gendered ideas?
Questions
so here are the question that i have fore Cohen. I will try to keep them as straight forward as possible.
1a) Ok, lets start off simple. What does Cohen mean by the Citizen Consumer, The purchaser consumer, and the purchaser as citizen? These "consumer ideologies" play a major role throughout A Consumers' Republic, does Cohen always present these differing identities as always antagonistic toward each other? Or can there be some reconciliation?
1b) Does Cohen rely too heavily on economic factors (is this book just a story of economic determinism)? how is it? or how is it not?
2a) When Cohen describes women and their participation in a consuming republic how are they presented? Does Cohen's adherence to consumer motivation end up reaffirming gender norms? (Might be a good idea to discuss what these gender norms are and how they change as well)
2b) Do you buy Cohen's consumer motivation for the actions of African Americans and for Women? Is it easier to believe for one of these groups than the other?
3) The source question. So, who is talking in this narrative? As in, who are the historical actors that move the story forward? What sources are used in order to construct this narrative?
That's it for now, see everyone tomorrow.
1a) Ok, lets start off simple. What does Cohen mean by the Citizen Consumer, The purchaser consumer, and the purchaser as citizen? These "consumer ideologies" play a major role throughout A Consumers' Republic, does Cohen always present these differing identities as always antagonistic toward each other? Or can there be some reconciliation?
1b) Does Cohen rely too heavily on economic factors (is this book just a story of economic determinism)? how is it? or how is it not?
2a) When Cohen describes women and their participation in a consuming republic how are they presented? Does Cohen's adherence to consumer motivation end up reaffirming gender norms? (Might be a good idea to discuss what these gender norms are and how they change as well)
2b) Do you buy Cohen's consumer motivation for the actions of African Americans and for Women? Is it easier to believe for one of these groups than the other?
3) The source question. So, who is talking in this narrative? As in, who are the historical actors that move the story forward? What sources are used in order to construct this narrative?
That's it for now, see everyone tomorrow.
Death to Colonel Ogg!
1. So who wants to go torch the suburbs?
2. Is it odd that Cohen doesn't discuss Fordism? There are a few mentions of the postwar consensus between the UAW and the automakers -- what she calls "Fordist compromise" -- but no mention that the whole idea of a consumption-based economy in some ways goes back to Henry Ford and the $5 day.
3. If you're gonna use a TV program to bolster a point, shouldn't your argument be based on more than a single episode? I'm thinking here of Cohen's use of The Donna Reed Show, which revolves around a single episode that seems to support Cohen's argument about female deference but which seems out of step with the show overall, where Donna was one of the most assertive TV moms of the day and even sometimes went to work as a nurse.
Plus she's gorgeous and she founded an antiwar organization during the Vietnam years. Hey Lizabeth Cohen -- nobody puts Donna Reed in a corner!
Discussion Questions
History Question
Cohen's discussion of the development of suburban areas is based on a case study of New Jersey. She stated in the introduction that the trends associated with New Jersey's development were in fact national and could have been located anywhere. (8) Does New Jersey stand as an adequate case study of the national experience? Much of the New Jersey references are in suburban New York City/Newark can we assume the court battles, private development, and racial tensions that occurred there happened generally throughout the United States? What is the significance of the urban/suburban character of the narrative?
Historiographical Question
There were two historiographical issues that I thought were quite interesting. I believe that usually the development of mass consumer culture has been associated with the post-war period, so what is the significance of Cohen placing the evolution as far back as the late 19th century and the more rapid change that occurred during the Great Depression and WWII? Specifically the African-American development as a consumer purchaser, how does this fit in with what we know generally about the civil-rights struggle? Also in reference to my history question, the examination of the court cases that came out of New Jersey are a different approach, usually focus is on federal court decisions, what does Cohen's focus add to the historiography of urban development and consumer culture?
Cohen's discussion of the development of suburban areas is based on a case study of New Jersey. She stated in the introduction that the trends associated with New Jersey's development were in fact national and could have been located anywhere. (8) Does New Jersey stand as an adequate case study of the national experience? Much of the New Jersey references are in suburban New York City/Newark can we assume the court battles, private development, and racial tensions that occurred there happened generally throughout the United States? What is the significance of the urban/suburban character of the narrative?
Historiographical Question
There were two historiographical issues that I thought were quite interesting. I believe that usually the development of mass consumer culture has been associated with the post-war period, so what is the significance of Cohen placing the evolution as far back as the late 19th century and the more rapid change that occurred during the Great Depression and WWII? Specifically the African-American development as a consumer purchaser, how does this fit in with what we know generally about the civil-rights struggle? Also in reference to my history question, the examination of the court cases that came out of New Jersey are a different approach, usually focus is on federal court decisions, what does Cohen's focus add to the historiography of urban development and consumer culture?
The Politics of Mass Consumption
I really like Vinnie's point about the question of writing a good history in a period that you lived through. While from a certain angle it can certainly seem to be an advantage in the fact that there are first hand experiences the author can directly relate to. But on the other hand it can leave the author open to biting criticism, similar to the criticism Seutonius has recieved in his writing of The Twelve Caesars. (Minding of course the near two thousand year difference, and the slight difference in the writing of history in ancient Rome) But, anyways the criticism of his history is the fact that it was written in a time period where his views about these twelve Caesars could bring about serious consequences. What he wrote about was influenced by belief and knowledge that had not had the pleasure of historical distance to work itself towards some semblence of truth.
When one writes about a time period in which they lived there are unavoidable biases that exist. There are unavoidable biases in any history written, whether political, economical, racial, or just personal preference, they are impossible to avoid. But the historians hope is that when one writes about a time period in the past, the bias that would exist if they lived in that period disappears. It is to be the archive that speaks to the historian, and from that a "subjective" (Ha, as if that exists) history is supposed to come forth. With the pleasure of historical distance as I mentioned earlier this is much more defendable. Do I believe Cohen's history is poor? No, the book is very well written and provides an intensive look at this "consumer's republic" as she says. I just felt Vinnie's point was provocative and deserved attention.
When one writes about a time period in which they lived there are unavoidable biases that exist. There are unavoidable biases in any history written, whether political, economical, racial, or just personal preference, they are impossible to avoid. But the historians hope is that when one writes about a time period in the past, the bias that would exist if they lived in that period disappears. It is to be the archive that speaks to the historian, and from that a "subjective" (Ha, as if that exists) history is supposed to come forth. With the pleasure of historical distance as I mentioned earlier this is much more defendable. Do I believe Cohen's history is poor? No, the book is very well written and provides an intensive look at this "consumer's republic" as she says. I just felt Vinnie's point was provocative and deserved attention.
Cohen
Although this was a gigantic book, I really found it interesting because there were a lot of connections that can be drawn to the city of Buffalo. Before I go any further I have a few questions that pertain to the book. (FYI I'm not the one posting questions this week) Can you write a history that you have lived through? And does Cohen convince readers that this "Consumers' Republic" influenced the U.S. more than the Cold War? Throughout the book I was expecting Cohen to come back to this question and to show directly why this culture influenced the U.S. more than the Cold War did, but in my opinion she did not engage directly with this.
Barring these questions Cohen makes a really simple, but powerful argument. Throughout she was able to balance issues of class, race, and gender using economics as a lens. Like Dan, I found how she engaged with both African Americans and women to be especially poignant. I'm not really sure about the general historiography, but I thought that it was really important how she demonstrated how the status quo was kept post-WWII. (i.e. GI Bill and the class makeup of the various suburbs.)One of the other things in this book that I found important was her discussion on the treatment of blacks. Unfortunately, I think too many high school text books stress the idea of the Jim Crow south as opposed to the idea of the Jim Crow U.S. Her commitment to show that the north was not immune to this ideology, was important and shows why teachers need to keep up to date on what they are teaching.
Barring these questions Cohen makes a really simple, but powerful argument. Throughout she was able to balance issues of class, race, and gender using economics as a lens. Like Dan, I found how she engaged with both African Americans and women to be especially poignant. I'm not really sure about the general historiography, but I thought that it was really important how she demonstrated how the status quo was kept post-WWII. (i.e. GI Bill and the class makeup of the various suburbs.)One of the other things in this book that I found important was her discussion on the treatment of blacks. Unfortunately, I think too many high school text books stress the idea of the Jim Crow south as opposed to the idea of the Jim Crow U.S. Her commitment to show that the north was not immune to this ideology, was important and shows why teachers need to keep up to date on what they are teaching.
"Golden Era?"
As I read Cohen’s take on the “Consumers’ Republic,” I gained a new perspective on the post-war reconfiguration of American society. Just as her distinctions between citizen-consumer and purchaser-consumer help form a context for understanding consumers’ diverse political roles, her in-depth investigation of the role of women and African Americans demonstrate the cultural and political impact of the consumers’ republic. Cohen’s contention that the consumers’ republic opened new avenues for activism (African American campaigns of “Don’t Buy Where You Can’t Work” and “Spend Your Money Where You Can Work”) is tempered by the vast evidence she provides pointing to increased stratification and fragmentation along class and racial lines. Her investigation of government sponsored discriminatory housing policies is particularly powerful. I also found her examination of market segmentation and how it eventually found its way into political campaigns interesting. In the end, Cohen succeeds in demystifying the “Golden Era of postwar prosperity.”
Cohen’s cultural critique of the consumers’ republic also raises an important question; one that may be unanswerable: To what extent did the consumers’ republic foster further discrimination and to what degree was it simply reinforcing existing discriminatory tendencies?
Cohen’s cultural critique of the consumers’ republic also raises an important question; one that may be unanswerable: To what extent did the consumers’ republic foster further discrimination and to what degree was it simply reinforcing existing discriminatory tendencies?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Cultural Modernism
I really enjoyed the way Tomes presented germ theory as part and parcel of the nascent mass-production and consumer culture of the early 20th century. It is evident from her work that the gospel of germs was the impetus for myriad products and inventions to aid the public in their quest for cleanliness as well as line the pockets of entrepreneurs, but more interesting to me was germ theory's profound impact on the decline of the Victorian aesthetic. Architecture and style help define an era, and it is no coincidence that the Victorian style of ornamentation, high detail, and plush interiors fell by the wayside during the early 20th century. "Antisepticonscious" Americans recognized these household environments as attractive to germs and dust as they were to the Victorians they housed. Tomes briefly touches upon this architectural and stylistic change on pages 158-161, but it makes sense to me that germ theory may have had a hand in the advent of Bauhaus and especially Art Deco styles of architecture and design that emerged after WWI. Specifically Art Deco construction with its emphasis on clean lines, polished metal and glass materials (easily cleaned!) seem to be intimately connected and driven by this cultural modernism Tomes ties in with germ theory.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Denise's Discussion Questions
History- Some discussion in Tomes’ book is devoted to the gospel of germs being embraced by those who are interested in profiting from these new scientific ideas. How important are these commercial actors in the story of the acceptance of the germ theory? Would the evolution of these ideas about germs be different if others, like scientists or doctors, had been the only ones to disseminate information to the public?
Historiography- In her introduction, Tomes states that one of her goals is to “challenge the implicitly gendered division of knowledge that regards as significant what Pasteur did in the laboratory but dismisses as inconsequential what a public health nurse or housewife did with his insights” (16). Do you think that parts of this work could be considered a successful gender history? Or is it just purely a social/ medical history with elements that are gender related? In the other books we read, like Enstad, women were able to show their agency in ways that were often ignored by other historians. Is this the case for Tomes’ work as well? -For this question I want to be clear that I am not assuming that the sole purpose of this book is to put forth an argument about germ theory and the role of women. I am merely interested in hearing thoughts about this gendered aspect that Tomes suggests in her quote.
Historiography- In her introduction, Tomes states that one of her goals is to “challenge the implicitly gendered division of knowledge that regards as significant what Pasteur did in the laboratory but dismisses as inconsequential what a public health nurse or housewife did with his insights” (16). Do you think that parts of this work could be considered a successful gender history? Or is it just purely a social/ medical history with elements that are gender related? In the other books we read, like Enstad, women were able to show their agency in ways that were often ignored by other historians. Is this the case for Tomes’ work as well? -For this question I want to be clear that I am not assuming that the sole purpose of this book is to put forth an argument about germ theory and the role of women. I am merely interested in hearing thoughts about this gendered aspect that Tomes suggests in her quote.
Melissa's Discussion Questions
Historiographical-
What kinds of sources were used and did she use them effectively? She discusses women a lot in the book explaining how women were forced to become the head of their households regarding maintenance and cleanliness out of fear for the safety and health of their family. This fear which came from the media and businesses advertising products that would fight germs and keep your houses safe, made women feel responsible for their family's health. However, we don't hear how they felt about this responsibility or their personal reactions to the advertisements.
History-
Tomes discusses how the media created this paranoia of germs within society and that people were not educated enough to know what was a threat or the differences between infectious, communicable, etc. She ends the book in the 1980s saying this fear died down but then was born again in the age of AIDS in the early 80s. Alright, so how are we doing today? Are we still in this era of anxiety reborn in the 80s? Are we still subjects of media induced paranoia of diseases and germs? Are we any more educated on this subject than we were 100 years ago? Or is this fear, which Tomes explains was created in the earlier years of the 20th century, forever ingrained in our psyche?
What kinds of sources were used and did she use them effectively? She discusses women a lot in the book explaining how women were forced to become the head of their households regarding maintenance and cleanliness out of fear for the safety and health of their family. This fear which came from the media and businesses advertising products that would fight germs and keep your houses safe, made women feel responsible for their family's health. However, we don't hear how they felt about this responsibility or their personal reactions to the advertisements.
History-
Tomes discusses how the media created this paranoia of germs within society and that people were not educated enough to know what was a threat or the differences between infectious, communicable, etc. She ends the book in the 1980s saying this fear died down but then was born again in the age of AIDS in the early 80s. Alright, so how are we doing today? Are we still in this era of anxiety reborn in the 80s? Are we still subjects of media induced paranoia of diseases and germs? Are we any more educated on this subject than we were 100 years ago? Or is this fear, which Tomes explains was created in the earlier years of the 20th century, forever ingrained in our psyche?
Reading Tomes as a starting point?
I think that Tomes book is very important in that is laid the groundwork for much of the critique of medicalization in other texts. The book works well to deconstruct the discursive history of germs position it as not simply pooping up randomly at a unique time in history, but rather that germ theory is part of a long narrative of medical, cultural and social history. This allows us to understand germ theory as a social construct, rather than simply medical fact, especially in the way that the theory impacted the daily lives of gendered and racialized populations.
I also think that showing how germ theory can be both oppressive as well as utilized by groups to improve their social condition is a crucial distinction that the text makes. But despite of this, I think at times Tomes seems to underestimate the impact that this germ theory has as a tool of social control. Germ theory and medicalization were often used to initiate social policy that excluded and separated non-white heteronormative groups from social equality. Although this text was in many ways a starting point of other works, I don’t think Tomes emphasizes the oppressive facets of the implications of germ theory as much as necessary.
One text that looks at germ theory, as a tool of oppression is Contagious Divides: epidemics and race in San Francisco's Chinatown by Nayan Shah. This text clearly owes a great deal to Tomes and she is referenced many times, but Shah takes the understanding of germs much further. The text, written about three years after Tomes, shows how a discursive history of linking of the Chinese immigrant population in San Francisco to being disease ridden. Through this linking Chinatowns were established and made into ghettos to keep the Chinese population separate from the remainder of the population in fears that disease would be spread. Also, this historical creation of an image of the Chinese as a dirty, disease-ridden population allowed them to be legislatively discriminated against. Thus heteronormative whiteness was reinforced as moral, just and upstanding, but also cleanly and free of disease.
Perhaps without Tomes test such scholarship as Shah’s would not have been possible, so in that regards it is very much a crucial text, but it could have taken the marginalizing impacts of germ theory a bit further in the work.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9144.php
I also think that showing how germ theory can be both oppressive as well as utilized by groups to improve their social condition is a crucial distinction that the text makes. But despite of this, I think at times Tomes seems to underestimate the impact that this germ theory has as a tool of social control. Germ theory and medicalization were often used to initiate social policy that excluded and separated non-white heteronormative groups from social equality. Although this text was in many ways a starting point of other works, I don’t think Tomes emphasizes the oppressive facets of the implications of germ theory as much as necessary.
One text that looks at germ theory, as a tool of oppression is Contagious Divides: epidemics and race in San Francisco's Chinatown by Nayan Shah. This text clearly owes a great deal to Tomes and she is referenced many times, but Shah takes the understanding of germs much further. The text, written about three years after Tomes, shows how a discursive history of linking of the Chinese immigrant population in San Francisco to being disease ridden. Through this linking Chinatowns were established and made into ghettos to keep the Chinese population separate from the remainder of the population in fears that disease would be spread. Also, this historical creation of an image of the Chinese as a dirty, disease-ridden population allowed them to be legislatively discriminated against. Thus heteronormative whiteness was reinforced as moral, just and upstanding, but also cleanly and free of disease.
Perhaps without Tomes test such scholarship as Shah’s would not have been possible, so in that regards it is very much a crucial text, but it could have taken the marginalizing impacts of germ theory a bit further in the work.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9144.php
Mike Putzak Discussion Questions
Historiography Question:
Tomes asserts in her introduction that she is writing in response to historical demographers who have assumed that "the changing of personal and household practices had little to do with the decline in mortality rates from infectious disease that began in the nineteenth century." Tomes, however, finds that there are a number of these practices that are still promoted as a form of disease control. My question is: Is her focus on the changing of practices within the home, with special attention to the changes that were geared toward women successful? Is the evidence she uses convincing enough to make a stand against these historical demographers she mentions in her introduction?
History Question:
Tomes puts a focus on the popular education campaigns that existed around the turn of the 20th century. Though, shortly following the discovery that these campaigns were in fact educating incorrectly, they were put to the wayside since being debunked with "real" science. Tomes states that it is important to study these, as they were influential, although maybe not correct. My question is: Is this study of history, this study of unsuccessful movements, that without much investigation have little relation today, important? Should we be looking at movements, campaigns, events, that historically have been proven to be incorrect? Tomes puts forth the argument that they were influential at the time period, and therefore belong in this book which studies the development of her "gospel of germs." Do we think this is historically significant?
Tomes asserts in her introduction that she is writing in response to historical demographers who have assumed that "the changing of personal and household practices had little to do with the decline in mortality rates from infectious disease that began in the nineteenth century." Tomes, however, finds that there are a number of these practices that are still promoted as a form of disease control. My question is: Is her focus on the changing of practices within the home, with special attention to the changes that were geared toward women successful? Is the evidence she uses convincing enough to make a stand against these historical demographers she mentions in her introduction?
History Question:
Tomes puts a focus on the popular education campaigns that existed around the turn of the 20th century. Though, shortly following the discovery that these campaigns were in fact educating incorrectly, they were put to the wayside since being debunked with "real" science. Tomes states that it is important to study these, as they were influential, although maybe not correct. My question is: Is this study of history, this study of unsuccessful movements, that without much investigation have little relation today, important? Should we be looking at movements, campaigns, events, that historically have been proven to be incorrect? Tomes puts forth the argument that they were influential at the time period, and therefore belong in this book which studies the development of her "gospel of germs." Do we think this is historically significant?
"don't spit!!"
In these days of swine flu and the ubiquitous Purell hand sanitizer pumps (which are stationed like sentinels at the teller stations of my bank), Nancy Tomes’s Gospel of Germs is apropos. Social histories are important reminders that contemporary American culture was not formed in a vacuum. Indeed, our collective habits regarding health and disease prevention have evolved over a long period of time with the help of various scientific discoveries and, at times, paranoid tendencies to see every insect, handrail, and dollar bill as mortal enemies. While turning the pages of the book, I couldn’t help thinking how the germ revelations of the late nineteenth, early twentieth century have informed our popular conceptions (mainly propagated through advertising) of harmful bacteria as CGI animated organisms biding their time on the top of garbage can lids until they are transferred, via small, unsuspecting child, to a door handle to cause unbridled havoc. The book also reminds me that when my 92 year old grandmother suggests that I gargle salt water to relieve my sore throat, she is speaking not only as a concerned grandma but as a believer in the home remedies instilled in her by her experiences with American tradition and culture.
I was also intrigued by Tomes’s assertion that “by setting themselves up as experts on the home, reformers carved out interesting new spheres of social and political influence for themselves” (139). It demonstrates how power is often gained through the ostensible “knowledge” of one in contrast to the “ignorance” of another.
I was also intrigued by Tomes’s assertion that “by setting themselves up as experts on the home, reformers carved out interesting new spheres of social and political influence for themselves” (139). It demonstrates how power is often gained through the ostensible “knowledge” of one in contrast to the “ignorance” of another.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)