One of our major assignments for the class required us to research a topic of our choice related to history and then post our own Wikipedia entry about it. It was definitely a great experience for me. First of all, just knowing that my Wikipedia article (about the Alaska Statehood Act) was posted in an online encyclopedia for everyone to read and learn from made me so proud. Despite many professors’ and teachers’ discouragement, I know that most students old and young still use and read it, so knowing that I would be a source of knowlege, that I would help so many others to learn more about one little topic makes me feel pretty good, especially being just a student with often too little power and influence in the ability to teach others. I may be just a young student, but I am not an idiot. I may not have a Ph.D. in History but I did my research and I am fairly certain that all the information in my article is true. If it isn’t, well then anyone is free to edit it and correct me. Wikipedia even gives you the option of checking the history of your article to see who edited your article, what they edited, and you can even choose to debate with them as to the validity of what they editied and such. To me, that sounds like a pretty good system. Unlike other sources, this is one that is ever-changing and can ever be updated and changed if anything proves to be untrue. My article has not been changed too many times, except to correct a few typos and minor grammatical errors (mainly adding commas here or there). The fact that it was not meddled with in any minor way I think simply proves the validity of everything I had to say. It was a good article, it was well written, and it was factually correct and intellectually stimulating. I learned quite a few things I hadn’t known about Alaska’s struggle for statehood, and now I can share that knowlege with the public. I think that’s a great and productive method of teacher so props to Professor Boggs on that one!

Generally, having to read weakly articles on Wikipedia opened my eyes a bit as well. I won’t lie, Wikipedia is not perfect. Some Wiki articles that we had to read sounded a bit sketchy and had WAY TOO MANY typos, like they were writeen by a kid or something. This, however, was really rare. Most of the articles were fairly well-written and factually accurate (as far as I could tell, anyway). You could always tell, though, when an article was not reliable. So to be on the safe side, don’t take everything as if it’s a given. Then again you should never do that anyway with ANY resource. Always read multiple sources and compare data because you never know. People are always biased and anyone can make mistakes. A lot of aspects of history, for example, could also be opinionated so you should never only take one person’s view on a subject, regardless of whether or not they hold a Ph.D. Wikipedia is perfect, though, because in a way it is like reading multiple sources at once. After all, it was written and then edited by multiple persons, all of a variety of different classes, races, religions, beliefs, educational levels, etc. Therefore it is probably the most unbiased source you could find! It is democracy in its best form – a diverse country filled with millions of different people, all contributing a bit of themselves, of their knowlege, to make a larger more complete essence of truth. What could be better than that?

Perhaps I am exaggerating a little bit, but I have to say that just because you are not a scholar in a certain subject doesn’t necessarily mean that you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course if you are not sure of something you probably shouldn’t post it online for everyone to read. However, I’d like to think that what I say does have some credibility. The problem with a lot of “scholars” or “experts” is that sometimes they’re so full of themselves that they no longer see the obvious. Too much knowlege can so often corrupt the mind. Even worse is when those “experts” are biased. Becasue of their title or degree people tend to automatically believe everything they have to say, as if just because they said it, it makes it a fact. I have heard many people who claim they are “experts” in a certain field say things that I happened to KNOW for CERTAIN were factually incorrect.

But then again who would listen to me, I’m just a lonely young student – what do I know, right? Wrong. Everyone has their areas of expertise. Everyone knows something that they can teach others. Everyone should have the right to be taken seriously. To learn and to teach, isn’t that what life is all about? I say props to Professor Boggs for being open-minded and realizing that nothing is ever set in stone. Nothing is in black or white – there are always grey areas and even an expert can be proven wrong sometimes. As a professor he understood that, and he understood the worth of the individual and the value of hearing, learning, and understanding other people’s opinions. History is so often viewed through the eyes of the elite, the “experts”, the rulers or leaders. But as the saying goes, what would happen if “the lions wrote history?” Would you get a completely different story? Or perhaps just one told in a slightly different way, through different eyes. It would deffinitely give you a different perspective on things. What Professor Boggs understood is that history is something passed down through the generations. To truly understand what happened so many years ago it is important to understand the people of the time, to read the stories written by your average citizens – people like you or me. History should be written by the people, not the experts, because only then do you really get to the heart of the story; everything else is just politics… So props to Wikipedia for giving more power to the people. What is the fault in listening to facts as told by your fellow citizens without having a bias of who they are in your mind? I don’t see any, and I don’t think others should either. You could learn a lot from Wikipedia, so don’t toss aside such a valuable resource based on misconceptions that it is “unreliable”. It isn’t any more unreliable than any other source out there, so USE IT!

P.S. Thanks, Professor Boggs, for everything!

As is shown in the following YouTube video from the 1950s, a women’s place at the time was in the household and, even more specifically, in the kitchen. The video shows a young just-married couple coming back from the honeymoon. The fun is now over and the man goes off to work while the woman goes to the kitchen and spends the whole day trying to learn how to cook…

Now here we are in the 21st century, decades after the civil rights movement, and women still find themselves struggling to be seen as equals to men. Why is that? The reason is that, though laws have allowed women to gain access to most of the same opportunities as men, the original stereotype of what a woman is and what she can and cannot do has not been completely erased from the minds of either sexes. The thing that has been vastly overlooked until very recently is that in order for the stereotypical roles of a woman in society to change, the stereotypical roles of a man in society must change as well. For a long time, giving women the right to work simply meant giving them the option of adding one more duty to their already long list of household chores. They still had to cook and clean and take care of the kids, however, they could now also work as well. This posed a huge problem for women who became much too burdened with all that they had to do. This point is perfectly illustrated in the movie ”Moms on Strike” which is about a working mom who does so much for her family but feels under-appreciated by both her husband and her children. She decides to go on strike and refuses to do anything for her family until they realize her worth and agree to pitch in more with the household duties. Her strike gained much publicity and she encouraged other moms who felt the same way to join the strike. One woman who decided she had had enough managed to have an impact on the entire community. It was truly a powerful movie with a powerful message.

Another movie that shows a family that struggles to survive for at least a week without their mother. By the end of the week, the family comes to appreciate and realize how much they really needed their mother. The movie shows how essential it is for the whole family to work together, and for the father and mother especially to make a good team that can balance all the work involved in raising a family, working, and also taking care of household duties. Only then did the family function as a happy, loving, working unit.

More and more, TV and movies are moving away from the traditionally defined stereotypes and gender roles. Both sexes are becoming more open-minded and beginning to agree on sharing the balance between work and household duties. If we continue upon this path, then perhaps we can one day in the near future say that gender roles have completely changed in today’s society, but for now they are merely still developing. Yet as we continue to develop as a society it is important for TV and movies to play a huge role in showing and furthering that development, presenting new ideas and discarding old stereotypes that continue to prevent women from being regarded as equals – especially by the opposite sex…

(To read more about how TV, movies, and men in general are setting back society by continuing to hold on to the old stereotypes of what a woman should be, please read my blog post: Stereotypical Ideas About “Femininity” Continue to Hold Women Back from Being Seen as Equals by Men…) 

Example #1:

“This ad for hand lotion ran in Life, a widely circulated national magazine, in January 1943. The U.S. was fighting World War II, and with large numbers of men serving in the military, women joined the industrial workforce in unprecedented numbers and were critical to producing the planes, ships, and many other materials necessary for both the battlefield and the home front. This ad reflects the presence of women in what were previously considered exclusively male workplaces, but it also reassured readers that women had not sacrificed their traditional efforts to make themselves attractive, and ‘soft’ to potential husbands.”

Example #2:

“This perfume ad ran in Glamour magazine in 1972. Its knowing reference to women marching for equality suggests that feminist activism was a widespread phenomenon in this period that required no explanation. The message or story of the ad, however, makes a blatant pitch for traditional gender roles, positioning the product as a way for women to undercut their own political assertiveness.”

Example #3:

This 1910 add titled “Avoid Sunburn, Freckles and Chaps” is interesting because it shows an almost contradictory image – a picture of a woman playing golf outdoors; she is the outdoorsy type, the fun, the adventurous woman who can play golf AND look good at the same time. It almost represents a sense of power: the sun and wind and most SEVERE of weather will have no effect on her whatsoever. When she puts this vanishing cream on it makes her strong and invincible and she can go take on the outdoors and not have to once worry about how great she looks… Again, she is a woman to please.

It seems like a recurring theme that women are expected to always look good despite what they are doing. It really shows how society tends to see women. There is feminine sense of sensuality and beauty, combined with strength. What is deemed to be the ultimate purpose of women, though, seems to subtly be unwavering. They may do other things but in the end they are still women meant to look good and please men. Crude as it sounds, it is ultimately true, and a view that will probably never really change in the back of our minds. 

 Let’s take the example of how women are portrayed by looking at different women’s cosmetic products and perfume ads. In this area, advertisers would appeal to a woman’s desire to look young and sexy, despite her age. That is why older woman who are beautiful are shown as apposed to younger women. They also appeal to sexuality, often showing a woman with a very appreciative and attentive man in the background, holding the woman. In this way, the ads are silently appealing to both men and women. The man would want to be pleased as such and the woman would want to please…

1) The first add (click here to view) is a 1929 Marie Barlow Cosmetics ad titled “YOU can be Youthful”. This add shows a beautiful woman at the front and appeals to the desire to look young, and in effect by showing women and men ballroom dancing energetically and youthfully in the backround, it hints that by looking young you can also feel and maybe even become young again. Go back to the days of youthful energy, dancing, and craefree flirting and fun. This is definitely a technique still used today, the thought that cosmetics can make a woman look younger.

2) The second add  (click here to view) is a 1998 Chanel No. 5 ad. This one is much more simple and has no writing, but portrays the same general message we see all the time with cosmetics and perfume ads: use me and you can look just as beautiful and sexy as this woman. It’s also sensual in a way and the use of black and white for the woman and then color for the perfume is interesting. Perhaps this subtly implies that using the perfume can somehow bring “color” into your dull black and white world…

3) One of the most popular techniques used with advertising women’s products is showing how appreciative and responsive a man would be to a woman who used that product. She would become more sexy, beautiful, kissable, lovable… and this would be an appealing concept both to the woman who wants to please and the man who wishes to be pleased (and may as a result buy this product as a gift for his woman). This is shown in both the 1947 Dryad Cream Deoderant ad titled “New Way to be Sweet to Love” (click here to view) and the 1998 Elizabeth Arden Splendor ad (click here to view). The Dryad ad’s title speaks for itself. It shows a beautiful woman being kissed and loved by a man. It is sweet and sensual. The Splendor perfume ad also shows a beautiful woman being held close by a man in a sensual way, maybe about to kiss. The ad is shown as if it is the cover of a movie, and the supposed critics’ reviews written on the side in quotes say “A Fragrance Sensation”, “A Sparkling Love Story”, “Wonderfully Romantic”… and at the bottom of the ad it reads “Sometimes there’s a moment when everything comes together… a moment of Splendor.” The slogan is a catchy one, and the critics’ reviews spell out the mood of the ad and implies that the perfume will cause this “wonderfully romantic” “sparkling love story” scene to occur.               

They key thing to remember with advertising is that every little detail in an adverisement is added for a purpose. Little things like the placement of ads, their size, the colors used, the amount of text vs. pictures, the font types and sizes used – all these things and more influence how we see an add…

Continue to read more about the portrayal of women in ads in my other blog post “Advertising Techniques of Yesterday and Today – Part 2″

The debate was a feirce one. Lincoln was worried that freeing slaves and accepting them into the Union Army would alienate the border states who were in support of the Union. He also didn’t want to anger anyone in the North who was pro-slavery. The South, however, was using slaves in their war effort and many in the North felt that they needed to counter-act this. Generals like Fremont and Hunter attempted to free slaves and enlist them into the Union army until Lincoln ordered them to stop. General Benjamin Butler made a move to declare all fugitives who happen to find their way to Fort Monroe to be declared “contrabands of war” and though Lincoln was not in support of this, congress agreed and passed the Confiscation Acts which allowed this to be possible. Lincoln feared such acts would be “unconstitutional” and he preferred to have “compensated emancipation” in which slave owners would be paid to free their slaves. This however was only carried out in Washington D.C.

As the war raged on, though, the need for more Union soldiers became imminent. Also, by freeing the slaves the North could help gain British support for the Union and turn them against the South. In the end, Lincoln did issue the Emancipation Proclamation, despite his many reservations and fears over what these outcomes would be. Its overall effects, both negetive and positive, were very evident in the North and South and could be seen in the album attached (click here to view album and read more about the effects of African Americans in the war). Basically, in the end Lincoln’s sole purpose and goal was to help the Union win in any way possible. His intentions are stated quite plainly in a letter he sends to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune and a devoted abolitionist: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I don’t believe it would help to save the Union.” – Abraham Lincoln, “Emancipation or Preservation of the Union?” The New York Times, New York, August 25, 1862

To my beloved mother,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness…”

These words were eloquently carved into the massive doors of the Town Hall (the villagers here call it “The Jamy”). Below it was written: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” 

The minute I read those words on that door, I knew I had finally found where I belong. My suspicions were confirmed after I had a chance to attend the town meeting and meet some of the people who lived in the area. You would not believe all the different people who live here, working together for a common cause. I met a wealthy landowner and his wife who had a large house up north. They told me of their three little children – two girls and one boy, the oldest. They were out playing in the parks surrounding the Hall. Another man was a farmer who I was told grew the best corn you could find anywhere. I met a woman who was a nurse at the nearby town clinic. She said she lived on her own in a small cottage not too far from the Hall. I was surprised to hear that but she said her nearby neighbors help her out, always checking on her. It brought tears to my eyes to see the sense of community here. A young boy with large calloused hands and a greasy face chatted with an older looking tired black man. I was told that the black man worked as a helping hand on one of the farms and that the boy worked in one of the factories across the river.

When the town meeting began, I sat and listened as the men debated minor issues of the town. They discussed an increase in taxes, talked about building more roads, and asked for volunteers for the upcoming town festival. Even a few of the woman present participated in debate and voted on issues along with everyone else. I was told that all men of or above the age of 16 and woman of or above the age of 21 who have been residents of the town for at least 4 months are allowed to vote. It is quite miraculous, so many different peoples all working together to help each other build a better community! This, mother, is what freedom should look like. This is what our country is all about, what we fought so hard to achieve. 

It seems like only yesterday that I left home in search of a better place. I knew that I could never gain what I wanted until  I had done so. It has been a long journey, and I have travelled from one town to another, seeing every type of society from the socialist to the capitalist to the vehemently religious. All were oddly lacking in the one fundamental principle that had driven them to establishing that community in he first place: freedom… The cause that had once united us to fight in order to form this great country has now only left us divided. Yet it is in this one little town that I have finally found solice. It is called Jamy’na, named after its founders the Jamy’een. I am told that its meaning is derived from the ancient Arabic word “Jamy’ “ meaning “to bring together.” It is a name pefectly suited, and I can only hope that it can do the same for us. One day, mother, I will bring you to see this little town and I am sure you will fall in love with it as I have. Until then, I have enclosed a drawing of our little town for you to see for yourself a bit of what it is like.

As you can see, in the very heart of the town is the Jamy. All major town activities are done in this building, everything from the regular town meetings, to any religious activities or services, to court cases and solving small disputes. The parks surround the Jamy and provide for wide open spaces where kids can run and play while their parents socialize and attend the town meetings or religious services. Also nearby are the schools and the town clinic. The farmers live in the eastern and southern parts of town where they grow and sell their crops. Further off across the river are the factories where the raw materials are manufactured and goods are shipped back and forth. The wealthiest of folk live up north. Meanwhile in the northwest and the western parts of town are who we call the “urban-folk.” They are more industrialized and generally either work in a factory or run their own small businesses. As you can see, though, the town is a bit iscolated from any surrounding societies by woods – especially on the western side. This, however, brings us closer together and forces us to rely more fully on one another.

I have currently settled into a tiny house in the southwest and am learning to become a part of the society here. I will write as often as I am capable and will tell you everything. Alas, in this tiny little town of Jamy, freedom rings true – and its sound is music to my ears. I have only you to thank, mother, for all my successes. I send you my love and you are, of course, always in my prayers. Until I can write again, my best wishes. Signed, Your loving son Jacob.      

Every time a historical movie comes out, critics have to rant and rave about its “historical accuracy.” The question that is always brought up is whether or not filmmakers have the right to twist, bend and alter history for the purpose of entertainment. In making this movie, the filmmakers -like many others before them- followed a concept called the “poetic truth, a truth truer than the literal truth.” This concept basically states that as long as “the underlying meaning of the events is accurate,” then the “details” don’t really matter. [1] After all, people don’t go watch movies like The Patriot in order to learn about history; they go to be entertained. So why blame the filmmakers for simply doing their jobs?

Frankly, I think they did well. They addressed key points about the war; like the fact that there was a vast difference in opinion about the war. The movie also stressed the important role that both women and children played in the war. Women were shown encouraging men to fight for the cause. Benjamin’s two oldest sons portrayed the large portion of the youth population that was thrilled to join the war and defend the cause of liberty. Even the youngest children were forced to wield weapons for protection. The movie also showed the vital role the French played in winning the war. We had to “Trust the French,” for who knows where we’d be today without them. They also did a very good job of recreating the feel of the 1700s; the scenery, the clothing, the showing of what warfare was really like at the time, explaining concepts like “war ethics” and “the rules of war”, and understanding the switch to guerrilla tactics, why that happened, and what it meant for both the Brits and the colonists.

In terms of the negative aspects, the biggest and most commonly criticized historical flaw is the way slavery is portrayed (or, rather, not portrayed) in the movie. Though slavery played an integral role in society at the time, it is all but ignored in the movie. Benjamin who is a well-respected member of the community doesn’t even have slaves; he has “freedmen.” At the time, that would’ve been extremely unlikely. The whole relationship between blacks and whites was a bit romanticized in the movie, as were the characters of Benjamin and Colonel Tavington. Both seemed superhuman, especially Benjamin who somehow managed to single-handedly kill entire legions of soldiers (go figure)…

In the end, though, it just all goes back to how to make a good movie. One: there must be a good plot. You can thank history for that one. Two: there must be a “bad guy” or else you would end up spending the whole movie trying to figure out who you hated more, the Brits or the colonists, and would probably just end up hating the main character (he was really scary sometimes). Throw in a bunch of Hollywood drama and special effects and you have yourself a movie that does exactly what it is supposed to do. It brings tears to the eyes of the sappy Titanic-loving crowd. It has enough graphic battle scenes to satisfy the action-loving, blood-and-gore “look, his head just got blown off” crowd. And most importantly, it tells the story of a people that risked losing everything they had for the sake of freedom. It was the story of a regular people that stood up against all odds to fight for a cause they believed in strongly enough to be able to go against the most powerful country in the world – and win…

[1] In an editorial written by Mackubin T. Owens, he states: In 1995, Richard Bernstein wrote a piece for the New York Times entitled “Can Movies Teach History?” Noting that “more people are getting their history, or what they think is history, from the movies these days than from the standard history books,” he then asked, does “the filmmaker, like the novelist, have license to use the material of history selectively and partially in the goal of entertaining, creating a good dramatic product, even forging what is the sometime called the poetic truth, a truth truer than the literal truth?” In other words, “does it matter if the details are wrong if the underlying meaning of events is accurate?”

Most of the WANT ads followed a similar structure. The “subscriber” to the ad would state the time and place from which the laborer had escaped, followed by his or her name, age, hight, a description of the runaway’s physical features, any distinguishable or unique marks, scars, etc. and an account of what he or she was last wearing before they ran away.  Then if the author has any idea as to the plans of the runaway, they would state them, followed by a warning, mostly to the “masters of vessels,” to not allow them to board. Finally they would state the reward and the name of the subscriber. Though articles varied in order, detail and length, this was the general content.

Dividing the runaways into three general categories, from 1736-1763, from 1764-1786, and from 1787-1803, I was able to generally notice what things seemed to change and what things did not seem to change about the runaways and their articles. Peculiarly there were actually many similarities between all the runaways throughout the years. The first things I noticed was that, first, they were mostly men, though I suppose that was expected. The second thing was that they were, also expectedly, mostly slaves rather than servants, though there were many runaway servants as well. They were also mostly around the same ages. Though most of the time the laborers exact age was unknown the author would usually state that they were about 20, 30, or 40 years old. Ages rarely dropped below 20 or rose above 40. They also seemed to run away more commonly in the summer months, between March and August, with August being a particularly common one. This leads me to believe that the summer was the most suitable time period for travel and that men around the age of 30 were the strongest and mot capable of escape. Most escapees took nothing withthem but the clothes on their back and perhaps some extra clothing as well. Others may have stolen a horse, gun, money, books and writing-paper, or cloths and linnings. They sometimes carried forged passes or took companions with them, often planning to board a vessel or use their skills to disguise themselves as sailors, blacksmiths, or shoe-makers. In the later years (mostly 1787-1803) runaways usually planned to disguise themselves as freemen.

In articles, runaways were often described by their color as being either yellow, black, or very black. They almost always had scars on their backs or faces and were often described as having pretty good English skills, which I suppose could be an important asset for escapees. This however was not always the case.

Another thing that was also very interesting was that, as the years went on, descriptions of the runaways’ actual character, habits, and personality seemed to increase (mostly 1764 and onwards.) Subscribers often described runaways as being notorious liars, villains, felons, wenches, rogues, very deceitful, etc. On the other side of the spectrum, though, were others that were very commonly being described as remarkably sensible, smart, artful, and cunning. Many were said to have a “smiling countenance.” They also described their habits (usually drinking habits), such as one Negro servant who was described as being “apt to get drunk then to ridicule the country in general.”

Most runaway slaves and servants, despite their age, sex, and serving status seemed to generally cost about the same amount when it came to rewards, for they did not seem to vary too greatly. About 1736-1760, the reward was usually one or two pistoles, and sometimes four or five. In the 1760s, however, it more commonly became 30 or 40 shillings. During this time period the rewards were given by the owners in addition to a government reward, though in the later years no government reward was mentioned anymore. From 1764 and onwards, the currency varied more dramatically. It was 5, 10, or 20 pounds, and sometimes 2 Guineas. There was also the dollar. Between 1787-1803 that was what was mostly used, usually about 5, 10, 15, or 20 dollars. Very shockingly, though, there were those who offered 300, 500, or even 1000 dollar rewards.

In retrospect, there were many differences over the years, but generally articles did not vary too greatly. Women escapees were still few, youngens were few as well as the elderly, and the times of escape and amount of awards did not vary greatly.