You will hear enough from me about Davidson today I am sure, so...
We all have gaps in our knowledge, and some appear more gaping than others. Only a semester ago, I realized that I had mis-defined a term I had heard in my early life. You may recall the chimney sweep scene in the Disney movie Mary Poppins? In this scene, the children and Mary are one the roof with Burt who calls out to the other chimney sweeps in town. They pop out of various and sundry chimneys for an exciting dance number. In the scene, hundreds of chimney sweeps are singing and dancing on the roof, covered in soot. The captain, known for firing his cannon twice a day precisely on time, notices the dancing men and exclaims "Its the Hottentots!" before firing several shots at the chimney sweeps. As a child, I somehow determined that Hottentots were Germans. It seemed logical to me since several other children's movies mentioned British wars with Germany and invasions. I never associated the "black-face" costumes of the chimney sweeps as being significant markers of racial difference, or misleading to the Captain. I simply picked a villain that made most sense to me in the cultural context of England between world wars.
I discovered in my feminist theories class that Hottentot was a term applied to Africans as we read British descriptions of the physical differences between the British and Africans. I still think it sounds more like a term for Nazis or something. Anyway, I decided to search for this term along with American terms like "negroes" and "slaves" to see what different articles would use this term. I also searched for "Quakers" in conjunction with these terms. I found several missionary accounts of African travels and conversions, but the one I settled on was the description of a meeting between Dutch speaking, converted "Hottentots" and a young, African slave in the U.S. The converted "Hottentots" were visiting a church, and a young African boy came in to observe them. The women swooped down on him with warm embraced and a translator questioned him about his religion. They were surprised that he was not religious, even though he has had the opportunities provided by living in this country. This seems to be a statement on the missionary work which had been more successful abroad than at home, but it may also be an attempt to point out the value of religion to slaves and slave owners in the community.
With these search terms, I also found a review of a book written about travels in Virginia. While the review is negative overall, it copies letters which the author collected for his book, and these letters discuss slavery and racial and religious assumptions from different people in Virginia and surrounding areas. Since I am interested in letters which appear in periodicals, these letters may appear in later blogs in more detail. I also found a long (39 page) article discussing the reason Africans and Americans had different skin tones and the reasons for the variety of skin tones amongst Africans. This article responds to another article which outlines the main reasons to be heat or climate, but also mentions religious or social beliefs and behavior as other causes of difference. If you are interested in the body and othering through physical differences, this article could be helpful. It is, of course, disturbing as well.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Seduction and Transatlantic Perceptions
Dr. Robbins recently referred me to Revolution and the Word for my exam list and dissertation interest, and after reading the introduction, I am terribly excited to read on! The subject is helping me expand my thoughts on the ways novels present marriage and seduction tales in eighteenth century American (and British, and transatlantic texts)!
I love it when a plan comes together!
So far, I have found myself reading with excitement, then getting bored, and then excited again when novels are mentioned (single focused much? I know). I was particularly interested in Davidson's discussion of the choice writers made to even use the genre of the novel as their platform, and I wonder how the reality which novels perform in their fiction changed the ways readers thought about American culture. Did British readers read these novels and believe that America similar or different in their views about seduction, for example? What did they perceive or misconstrue about women's rights and slavery from reading these novels? Since we know Charlotte Temple was read on both sides of the pond, in what ways did the cultural identity of America and Britain differ, and how did it change British perception?
I am thinking specifically of two examples dealing with seduction that seem to respond to American identity:
Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders: Moll is seduced early in the novel, "ruined" and forced to marry for security. In the end of the novel, she finds redemption and wealth in America. Was Defoe using the American dream to promote an escape for fallen women? Or did he believe that the new country still had the opportunity to form itself as different (and better) than Britain when it came to opportunities for women?
A periodical article I discovered in a British ladies magazine in which a widowed American ex-patriot in Britain sues a gentleman for seducing her daughter with promises of marriage... and she wins 1000 lbs. The fact that she is an American and her husband was an American soldier is emphasized in the article. In what ways does the American identity of the victims and the unexpected outcome of seduction (trial and award of money vs. death of victim and mother) respond to the ways female seduction was presented in early American novels? What does it say about British perception of American cultural identity? If seduction in novels stands for the dissonance in the new republic, what does it stand for in British literature influenced by these works?
Just some thought I am playing with for now!
Shoot. I got distracted and forgot to talk about the "red man." Maybe in another post....
***************************
So I tried to post this as a reply to Emilee, but for some reason I couldn't get it to post:
I must admit two things:
I highlighted a lot on page 18 as well.
And, I admit to calling someone un-American once. My ex requested a burger with no cheese, and because I think there is something terribly wrong with avoiding cheese on a burger without the excuse of lactose sensitivity, and because I personally love cheese on a burger, I took him not wanting cheese personally (or patriotically).
Oh the shame!
Anyway, Davidson has also made me think about the ways "our" flippant or pat responses to disagreements (or people with different or new ideas) as "un-American" has made me think about ways cultural identity is established in other countries as well. For those of you in the Victorian periodicals class, I'm thinking of Franklin Blake's competing cultural identities and the privileging of the British identity. So I suppose Americans aren't exceptional in this behavior either!
Sorry if their are typos in this response... I can't see the computer screen well from atop this soap box..
I love it when a plan comes together!
So far, I have found myself reading with excitement, then getting bored, and then excited again when novels are mentioned (single focused much? I know). I was particularly interested in Davidson's discussion of the choice writers made to even use the genre of the novel as their platform, and I wonder how the reality which novels perform in their fiction changed the ways readers thought about American culture. Did British readers read these novels and believe that America similar or different in their views about seduction, for example? What did they perceive or misconstrue about women's rights and slavery from reading these novels? Since we know Charlotte Temple was read on both sides of the pond, in what ways did the cultural identity of America and Britain differ, and how did it change British perception?
I am thinking specifically of two examples dealing with seduction that seem to respond to American identity:
Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders: Moll is seduced early in the novel, "ruined" and forced to marry for security. In the end of the novel, she finds redemption and wealth in America. Was Defoe using the American dream to promote an escape for fallen women? Or did he believe that the new country still had the opportunity to form itself as different (and better) than Britain when it came to opportunities for women?
A periodical article I discovered in a British ladies magazine in which a widowed American ex-patriot in Britain sues a gentleman for seducing her daughter with promises of marriage... and she wins 1000 lbs. The fact that she is an American and her husband was an American soldier is emphasized in the article. In what ways does the American identity of the victims and the unexpected outcome of seduction (trial and award of money vs. death of victim and mother) respond to the ways female seduction was presented in early American novels? What does it say about British perception of American cultural identity? If seduction in novels stands for the dissonance in the new republic, what does it stand for in British literature influenced by these works?
Just some thought I am playing with for now!
Shoot. I got distracted and forgot to talk about the "red man." Maybe in another post....
***************************
So I tried to post this as a reply to Emilee, but for some reason I couldn't get it to post:
I must admit two things:
I highlighted a lot on page 18 as well.
And, I admit to calling someone un-American once. My ex requested a burger with no cheese, and because I think there is something terribly wrong with avoiding cheese on a burger without the excuse of lactose sensitivity, and because I personally love cheese on a burger, I took him not wanting cheese personally (or patriotically).
Oh the shame!
Anyway, Davidson has also made me think about the ways "our" flippant or pat responses to disagreements (or people with different or new ideas) as "un-American" has made me think about ways cultural identity is established in other countries as well. For those of you in the Victorian periodicals class, I'm thinking of Franklin Blake's competing cultural identities and the privileging of the British identity. So I suppose Americans aren't exceptional in this behavior either!
Sorry if their are typos in this response... I can't see the computer screen well from atop this soap box..
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Phase 3 of My Relationship With Starr, and Pro Celibacy Propaganda, a Bachelor's Take
You know when you meet a new person for the first time, but realize that it isn't actually the first time? When you realize that you met her before, but she looked totally different to you then (before you knew her well)? There is a moment when your perception of someone changes and you suddenly "really" see them for the first time, and though you remember the other person you knew, this new person will never look like her again. People can become more or less attractive after these moments of knowing, or simply become one of "your people" who you accept without need for further evaluation. It is a strange feeling when someone you found unattractive or peripheral becomes adorable and significant, and then again when adorable becomes comfortable (and thus more significant, in a way).
This is where Paul Starr and I are in our relationship. At first I found his introduction dull and overly stylized; when I noticed his humor and became interested in his subject, he became witty and fascinating; when we became good friends, I barely noticed him at all, simply counted on him to continue as himself. At this point, I don't even feel as if I am reading in the same way-- its more of a gleaning or absorbing-- and have trouble evaluating the presentation of information, or even differentiating between what I knew before and what I learned from Starr (though I thought I knew very little before...). So I am glad to have the opportunity to write about my subject search in the periodicals (though this has been my favorite section of The Creation of the Media so far). I have little to say other than I am fascinated by what Americans were reading and in what format at what price, and want to know more about the specific new stories and fiction Starr alludes to.
On that note, this is my week when it comes to primary research! My interest lies in the presentation of marriage in eighteenth century literature, and I know little about the American take other than the treatment of the old maid stereotype for a conference presentation I did last year. This time, I found something about "unmarried men" (search terms) entitled "Arguments in Favor of Celibacy" printed in The American Universal Magazine in 1797 by a man named "Misogamos" (punny!). Good old Misogamos posits the reasons to avoid marriage: because it is expensive, women bring misery (misery is repeated frequently) and only helpful for women who find marriage beneficial. He quotes "wise" ancients (ironically, "wise" looks a lot like "wife" in the old fashioned print!). He argues that women are devils, have no souls, are focused on fashion and spending, obstinate, deaf to "rational argument," and blames their lack of education on their lack of interest and mental capacity. He even goes so far as to say "if there was anything to marry but women" it might be a less miserable situation.
However, Misogamos also points out that the nature of man requires change and argues that though women may be pleasing at first, men soon tire of the same old coat, horse, or even wife-- his only example that doesn't heap the blame on women. Children, which he sees as the natural outcome of marriage, multiply the misery by ten for each child-- so nine children plus a wife equals one hundred and ten miseries.... not sure about his math abilities... But in case that hurts his ethos, Misogamos compares liberty to celibacy, announces "Liberty or Death!" and links marriage to slavery. He argues that marriage, like slavery, "sinks [man] into lethargy, ignorance and apathy" and reminds us of slaves in America "possessing capacities equally good" who are far behind in knowledge because of slavery.
I would like to imagine this essay is a satire, for how can a man see the ways oppression in slavery dulls the minds of the enslaved, but not see how women were similarly oppressed by the institution of marriage and by societal expectations? How does he overlook the fact that women were also not educated, for instance? If it is a satire, it is too subtle to be obvious; even though I find it difficult to imagine a true misogynist would sign his name "Misogamos." Unfortunately, the name and my wounded feelings are the only arguments I have in favor of calling this a satire.
On a cheerful note, the old maid stereotype was not as pronounced at the time Misogamos published his arguments, and the term "spinster" still meant someone who spins. This would all change in a few years and the old maid would become a common joke in periodical poems and images, helping to remind women of the importance of marriage (or their un-importance without marriage, really). Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the increase in pro-bachelor literature and increase in anti-old maid literature? Was there a correlation? Or is it a conversation in periodical print?
This is where Paul Starr and I are in our relationship. At first I found his introduction dull and overly stylized; when I noticed his humor and became interested in his subject, he became witty and fascinating; when we became good friends, I barely noticed him at all, simply counted on him to continue as himself. At this point, I don't even feel as if I am reading in the same way-- its more of a gleaning or absorbing-- and have trouble evaluating the presentation of information, or even differentiating between what I knew before and what I learned from Starr (though I thought I knew very little before...). So I am glad to have the opportunity to write about my subject search in the periodicals (though this has been my favorite section of The Creation of the Media so far). I have little to say other than I am fascinated by what Americans were reading and in what format at what price, and want to know more about the specific new stories and fiction Starr alludes to.
On that note, this is my week when it comes to primary research! My interest lies in the presentation of marriage in eighteenth century literature, and I know little about the American take other than the treatment of the old maid stereotype for a conference presentation I did last year. This time, I found something about "unmarried men" (search terms) entitled "Arguments in Favor of Celibacy" printed in The American Universal Magazine in 1797 by a man named "Misogamos" (punny!). Good old Misogamos posits the reasons to avoid marriage: because it is expensive, women bring misery (misery is repeated frequently) and only helpful for women who find marriage beneficial. He quotes "wise" ancients (ironically, "wise" looks a lot like "wife" in the old fashioned print!). He argues that women are devils, have no souls, are focused on fashion and spending, obstinate, deaf to "rational argument," and blames their lack of education on their lack of interest and mental capacity. He even goes so far as to say "if there was anything to marry but women" it might be a less miserable situation.
However, Misogamos also points out that the nature of man requires change and argues that though women may be pleasing at first, men soon tire of the same old coat, horse, or even wife-- his only example that doesn't heap the blame on women. Children, which he sees as the natural outcome of marriage, multiply the misery by ten for each child-- so nine children plus a wife equals one hundred and ten miseries.... not sure about his math abilities... But in case that hurts his ethos, Misogamos compares liberty to celibacy, announces "Liberty or Death!" and links marriage to slavery. He argues that marriage, like slavery, "sinks [man] into lethargy, ignorance and apathy" and reminds us of slaves in America "possessing capacities equally good" who are far behind in knowledge because of slavery.
I would like to imagine this essay is a satire, for how can a man see the ways oppression in slavery dulls the minds of the enslaved, but not see how women were similarly oppressed by the institution of marriage and by societal expectations? How does he overlook the fact that women were also not educated, for instance? If it is a satire, it is too subtle to be obvious; even though I find it difficult to imagine a true misogynist would sign his name "Misogamos." Unfortunately, the name and my wounded feelings are the only arguments I have in favor of calling this a satire.
On a cheerful note, the old maid stereotype was not as pronounced at the time Misogamos published his arguments, and the term "spinster" still meant someone who spins. This would all change in a few years and the old maid would become a common joke in periodical poems and images, helping to remind women of the importance of marriage (or their un-importance without marriage, really). Perhaps it would be interesting to compare the increase in pro-bachelor literature and increase in anti-old maid literature? Was there a correlation? Or is it a conversation in periodical print?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Mary says I'm turning Americanist....
A difference in reading...
Is it just me, or did Starr really hit his stride in chapters two and three? I feel terrible for judging him as "dry" after reading the introduction. I found myself enjoying and chapter two immensely-- annotating the text, thinking of future paper topics, turning pages without realizing the distance covered-- all the markers for genuine interest and discovery in reading. I even found myself getting huffy about the continual distractions from the reading instead of delighting in them (who knew that a man shaving in the next room could be so irritating? Is it necessary to turn the water on and off so many times? And full blast at that?). I tried to blame Starr, thinking his humor wasn't as strong in the intro and Chapter One, or that his way of giving me an overview was dull, but really, I was hooked on these chapters because of what I already knew about American history coupled with new information. Learning more about Benjamin Franklin in a setting I can relate to as a writer and reader of articles interested me, as did reading about the Quakers role in literature suppression, and the side notes about Pennsylvania German papers (my family is Pennsylvania Dutch and Mennonites) because I have some basis for situating the new information in relation to my personal experience. Ta Da! So I have determined I am no more evolved than the basic readers-- if it interests me, I will read it more carefully, and the things that interest me somehow have to do with me. But I'm not crossing over from British to American focus-- I simply am American and that is enough of a connection to raise Starr in my estimation.
What connecting to readings can do for us:
Chapter Two "New Foundations" discusses the various filters through which American colonists heard about the world. It begins with the English filter as books and news came from London. Later, we get the filters of interest as the postmaster (Franklin!) chose to mail papers he liked (or published) rather than others. The filter I find most interesting is the filter of accessibility for the anti-federalists (and others). The idea that "free press" was limited by accessibility from the very beginning and that it was an issue for discussion in the same way we still battle with the privileged groups having more accessibility to press and education, surprised me. On one hand, of course this occurred! But on the other, I had never thought of it in this way, or that our country may have been shaped by those privileged enough to get their views out just as much as our current elections are shaped by candidates who have the wealth and power to advertise on their own behalves. I wonder what would have been different with a more balanced "free press" or if accessibility had been sanctioned and provided in more than lip service. And what would have happened if the reading populace had been more aware of the series of changing filters that surrounded them and altered what was available. Since I always saw the American Revolution as a moment for the underdog to shine, I never considered the further underdog, a group which may have saved us a lot of trouble in more modern times had they been given a voice in the making of the constitution.
On a side note, my Pennsylvania Dutch family prided themselves on education- almost to a level that seemed extreme for the times, so it has been interesting to read about different group's efforts to squelch literacy and free speech. And I will admit that a bit of my interest in this chapter stems from the excitement of watching Britain slowly lose control of the colonists, and considering what lead to this loss of control in the U.S., but not in Canada. Very interesting thoughts!
Is it just me, or did Starr really hit his stride in chapters two and three? I feel terrible for judging him as "dry" after reading the introduction. I found myself enjoying and chapter two immensely-- annotating the text, thinking of future paper topics, turning pages without realizing the distance covered-- all the markers for genuine interest and discovery in reading. I even found myself getting huffy about the continual distractions from the reading instead of delighting in them (who knew that a man shaving in the next room could be so irritating? Is it necessary to turn the water on and off so many times? And full blast at that?). I tried to blame Starr, thinking his humor wasn't as strong in the intro and Chapter One, or that his way of giving me an overview was dull, but really, I was hooked on these chapters because of what I already knew about American history coupled with new information. Learning more about Benjamin Franklin in a setting I can relate to as a writer and reader of articles interested me, as did reading about the Quakers role in literature suppression, and the side notes about Pennsylvania German papers (my family is Pennsylvania Dutch and Mennonites) because I have some basis for situating the new information in relation to my personal experience. Ta Da! So I have determined I am no more evolved than the basic readers-- if it interests me, I will read it more carefully, and the things that interest me somehow have to do with me. But I'm not crossing over from British to American focus-- I simply am American and that is enough of a connection to raise Starr in my estimation.
What connecting to readings can do for us:
Chapter Two "New Foundations" discusses the various filters through which American colonists heard about the world. It begins with the English filter as books and news came from London. Later, we get the filters of interest as the postmaster (Franklin!) chose to mail papers he liked (or published) rather than others. The filter I find most interesting is the filter of accessibility for the anti-federalists (and others). The idea that "free press" was limited by accessibility from the very beginning and that it was an issue for discussion in the same way we still battle with the privileged groups having more accessibility to press and education, surprised me. On one hand, of course this occurred! But on the other, I had never thought of it in this way, or that our country may have been shaped by those privileged enough to get their views out just as much as our current elections are shaped by candidates who have the wealth and power to advertise on their own behalves. I wonder what would have been different with a more balanced "free press" or if accessibility had been sanctioned and provided in more than lip service. And what would have happened if the reading populace had been more aware of the series of changing filters that surrounded them and altered what was available. Since I always saw the American Revolution as a moment for the underdog to shine, I never considered the further underdog, a group which may have saved us a lot of trouble in more modern times had they been given a voice in the making of the constitution.
On a side note, my Pennsylvania Dutch family prided themselves on education- almost to a level that seemed extreme for the times, so it has been interesting to read about different group's efforts to squelch literacy and free speech. And I will admit that a bit of my interest in this chapter stems from the excitement of watching Britain slowly lose control of the colonists, and considering what lead to this loss of control in the U.S., but not in Canada. Very interesting thoughts!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)