Every detail of a memorial presents designers with an opportunity to control this message through the reconstruction and distortion of the subject’s life – to guide what viewers will see, feel, and remember as they view the final memorial “collage.” Size represents one of the most obvious ways for a monument to manipulate perception of its subject. In everyday life, the greater an object is in scale, the more it may impress its audience; the smaller in scale, the more it may invite approach and contact. Reduce something’s scale enough, and it can even go all the way from intimidating to cute – a tiny plastic Tyrannosaurus or a palm-sized plush Cthulhu the Elder God, for instance, might evoke more “aw” than awe. Though the designers of D.C. monuments have never altered the scale of human subjects so far as to produce either fear or protective affection from their viewers, they have used it to encourage certain audience relationships with the monuments and certain audience perceptions of their subjects. The three presidential memorials containing human figures provide examples of how differences in scale can result in very different visitor interaction with monuments and perception of their subjects.

(Click here to continue to the accompanying photo essay.)

Prior to writing my Wikipedia article for this class, I posted my first Wikipedia article earlier in the semester, based on an article I wrote for my English 302 class. Having written the article (which covered a Japanese playwright), I did not want to let it go to waste, achieving nothing but a grade; so I edited it, marked it up, and published it on Wikipedia. Though it did not get a very large response, the few comments it did receive were all positive. Combined with that positive response and the satisfaction of having contributed well-researched and –written-up information to a resource that too often lacks both, I began to look at Wikipedia as it should be looked at: As truly open-source, something which I (and anyone else) can edit and add to as my knowledge base and interests allow me.

With the experience gained from this first article, I looked forward to writing my second one, for this class. Research went smoothly, as did writing and editing the article for Wikipedia; my experience with my first article had familiarized me with the basic expected format and the formatting tools used in Wikipedia, and I had found both less complicated than I had worried they might be. In particular, in writing the first article and in writing this second one, I learned to pay attention to other writers’ articles: If I found myself uncertain how to format something, I looked through the coding of well-formatted articles to see what formatting they used. This “copy-and-paste” learning technique comes in handy – I have done the same with blog code and a little bit with html and found picking things up by example easier than looking through faqs and tutorials, in many cases.

My article, on the Federal Theatre Project’s Living Newspapers, turned out well, in my opinion; I published it feeling that I had improved significantly on the previously-existing stub article. However, I knew I could add more to it, and went on to do so throughout the semester. First, I added some bits of content that made the article more appealing to look at and read. Finding images for this purpose proved to be the hardest part of the entire project: Plenty of photographs and posters related to the Living Newspapers appear on the Web, but I had a difficult time deciding if any were really in the public domain. I finally settled on three that came from sites that seemed to allow their images’ use elsewhere, and then spent time working through uploading the images and deciding on accurate fair-use statements. No Wikipedia users have voiced any complaints about the images, and they remain up on the article – I hope this means that I chose appropriate materials, in the end. In addition to the images, I also added quotes heading three of the sections, to add color and human voice to the dry encyclopedic text.

As I first published it, my article covered the history of the FTP’s Living Newspapers chronologically; but I wanted to also cover the style elements that made the Living Newspapers unique and the international influences that inspired the U.S. Living Newspapers. I made these content additions after the smaller presentation additions described above, adding two sections, about a paragraph long each. The addition of more “Further Reading” listings and a bit of formatting clean-up followed this; and the article now stands as fairly complete. Other readers could still make additions and improvements – room for such certainly remains – but the article now has almost everything I thought should be in it when I set out to write it.

So far, I have received no feedback on the article. I enjoy getting feedback, so I find this a tad demoralizing – but I am hoping that the lack of response is a good thing. I figure it means one of three things: One, the article stands complete as it is, with readers seeing no obvious problems; two, few people read the article, as the subject is relatively obscure; or three, few people know enough about the subject to volunteer improvement or opinions. I’m hoping for “one” – and also wishing that Wikipedia offered a page-view counter so I could see if people are visiting the page.

Regardless, as with my first Wikipedia article, I enjoyed constructing and improving this one, and for the same reasons. As a person who researches subjects naturally, I like having a public forum in which to share the results of my research; and, as a believer in moving obscure information out of expensive, hard-to-find texts and into an easily-accessible and readable format, I support what Wikipedia seems to stand for. I will likely continue to contribute to Wikipedia in the future.

As for using Wikipedia as a text itself, I still think that requires caution. Though many of the Wikipedia articles assigned for this class seemed thorough, well-researched, and decently written, I found others to be poorly written, scattered with opinions, sparse, and lacking citations. Wikipedia, I think, represents a spectacular resource and has the potential for great accuracy, breadth, and depth – but each article in Wikipedia has to be judged on an individual basis. Articles on established, stable, popular, thoroughly-documented subjects (such as the Civil War or Abraham Lincoln) receive constant policing and refining from many supporters; while articles on more obscure, controversial, or little-researched topics suffer from little policing and development. Using Wikipedia in a scholastic environment, for general background reading, can work well, as long as articles assigned receive quality-checking ahead of time, to make sure they have generally accurate information. When sub-par articles are assigned, they should be accompanied by discussion in class or additional published-text-based reading, to compensate for the errors and inadequacies in the articles.

Though I retain some reservations about using Wikipedia in an academic setting without great care and screening, my work with Wikipedia this semester leaves me further convinced of Wikipedia’s worth and potential as a general information resource. Having finally contributed to Wikipedia as a writer, instead of simply referring to it as a reader, I believe that I will continue to contribute to it in the future. Though work as a contributor does not appear to guarantee response from readers or from the Wikipedia community, I find the satisfaction of putting research together for a public audience worth the time and effort, regardless.

Choosing for Happiness, Parts 1 and 2: An educational video from 1950:

Above, the 1950 educational film Choosing for Happiness gives college-age girls advice on how to select a marriage partner. Based on the book Marriage for Moderns by Dr. Henry A. Bowman, chairman of the Division of Home and Family and the Department of Marriage Education at Stephens College (a women’s college), the video follows a college junior, Eve, through several failed relationships, as an older female college friend advises her on what she did wrong in each relationship. The film prescribes an accepting, submissive role as a wife for women. Eve, whose name itself suggests the Biblical fallibility of women, demands change from each of her stereotyped dates: Alex, the self-absorbed jock; Arthur, the clueless math nerd; Steve, the quiet handyman; and John, the no-nonsense “good guy.” Eve’s older friend explains that fault for the breakups did not lie in any of the boys, but in Eve: Changing others is “impossible”; if Eve wants to find a boyfriend, the only person she can change is herself. She must not test men, demanding that they prove their feelings for her in any way; instead, she must look very hard for someone whom she can accept as he is, with whom she can be “friends for a very long time” as a marriage partner. Women only date, the film implies, in order to find spouses; nowhere does Eve’s friend suggest that she does not have to search for a boy or could live happily post-college by herself. In this male-authored vision of women’s gender roles, Alex, the narcissistic jock, can still get a worshipful girlfriend without changing his ways; but a woman cannot expect to find a spouse without altering herself, at least a little. Marriage takes precedence; a woman can choose – she can even be picky –, but she cannot expect to demand of men as they may demand of her.

“Men to Avoid”: An interview with dating counselor Kateryna Spivak on the talk show 3 Takes:

In contrast, this segment of the present-day talk show 3 Takes, in which dating counselor Kateryna Spivak gives advice on “men to avoid” to the show’s three hosts, presents a female-authored view of gender roles and how a woman should relate to the opposite sex. Here, the counselor and hosts agree with the 1950 film, in claiming that the only person a woman can hope to change is herself – that is, she should not pursue a relationship in hopes of changing a man; but these women also claim the right to reject some men as undesirable for any woman. Where the 1950 film stated that the stereotyped men Eve rejected just needed someone “right for them,” this present-day segment allows women to pass judgment on some men as hurtful or even dangerous to women – again, stereotyped men like the “narcissist,” the “bad boy,” and the “mama’s boy.” Women, as suggested by this segment, also need not approach dating as a test stage for marriage: The hosts, all years beyond the college age of the 1950 girls, present dating advice for women, it seems, of any age. They neither champion nor declaim marriage; the present day woman, the piece seems to suggest, need not rush to find a mate – she can take her time finding just the right person and live unmarried indefinitely. She can even actively test her partner, getting him to “prove his love” by spending time with her, being constantly available, and introducing her to his friends and family. Here, a woman can still only expect change from herself; but she may also challenge men in a relationship and condemn some men outright.

Yet, the segment also implies a remaining divide between gender roles and, perhaps, a remaining hierarchy of the sexes. The hosts and counselor mention danger, doubt, and the potential for hurt and deception in the dating world many times throughout the segment, giving the sense that women must protect themselves from men and be on guard against them. Where the girls in the 1950 film placed themselves slightly below men through acceptance and denial of male fault, the women in this present-day show rank themselves as slightly below men through vulnerability and the potential for victimization. In this present-day view, men can hurt and lie to women, and women must guard themselves against these threats; but this show, at least, does not explore the possibility of women holding similar power over men. Double standards still seem to govern the definition of the female gender role, even though the standards themselves have changed significantly.

This comparison of both of these films, one from 1950 and one from the present-day, shows that, while accepted life focuses for women have changed, defining gender roles still govern the interactions of women with men. Present-day women may wait to marry or live independently and may demand more of men in relationships, but they still must remain wary of men, carefully interacting with human beings separated from women by the impassable gender divide. Though what women may expect from men has changed, the division of men from women and the strictness of gender roles, has, perhaps, remained in place.

(Click image for detail.)

In this 1927 Canadian Home Journal ad [1], the “freedom” half of the appeal comes through clearly in the slogan – “Active Women of Today are Free” –, as complimented by the illustration below. Here, an “active woman of today” greets her friends, a tennis racket tucked under her arm; her friends hold golf clubs. Kotex products, the ad suggests, have “freed” these women to play hard — physically, actively –, unhampered by the “handicap of yesterday’s hygienic worries.” The automobile behind the central woman reinforces this message, implying that the woman has driven herself to this meeting. This suggests her independence and modernity, as she can move fast without having to rely on male drivers to get her where she wants to go. At the same time, the text and bubbled images pointing out the advantages of Kotex products assure the consumer that the product offers “protection that is absolute,” a “true protection” far-removed from the “insecurity” and “uncertainty” of older products. Easy-to-use and obtainable without “embarrassment,” the product improves, the ad claims, both physical and mental health. A woman using Kotex is a woman freed from all social and mental concerns, a woman “free” but unhampered by any of the risks that come along with freedom.

(Click image for detail.)

This ad from a 2007 issue of More magazine employs the same techniques, assuring women that, with Kotex products, they may lead active lives, taking risks and moving fast, while still remaining secure and comfortable. Here, the ad also suggests freedom, modernity, adventurous activity, and movement through an implicit link with automobiles and driving. Take the product for a “test drive,” the text urges, establishing the connection further with the phrases “designed to hug your curves” and “shift over to a great fit.” Like the 1927 ad’s active woman, driving her automobile out to meet friends for golf and tennis, the woman implied by the 2007 ad travels at speed, ready to take life’s curves fast. At the same time, the 2007 Kotex consumer, like the 1927 consumer, need not worry about the risks and discomforts associated with freedom – the Kotex pad provides “comfortable, secure protection,” a “gentle” fit “ergonomically designed” just for “you,” the customer. The pure white background of the ad reinforces the message visually, just as did the clean, friendly sunny day pictured in the 1927 ad. The 2007 consumer may, metaphorically, zoom along the pristine roads of life without fear of obstacles and muck.

Though eighty years separate these two advertisements, the appeals they employ differ very little. In both 1927 and 2007, Kotex seeks to lure consumers by promising total freedom and complete security. While suggesting Kotex feminine pads can provide women with the freedom to take risks and embrace modern mobility, Kotex’s ads also hold that Kotex pads can shield women from all of the dangers of insecurity, uncertainty, and discomfort that risks almost always imply. Judging from the techniques used in these ads, despite great changes in the world at large, the conflicting human desires for freedom and safety, risk-taking and certainty, have remained constant over the past eighty years.

[1] Duke University Digital Scriptorium Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library. Ad*Access. Duke University. 7 Nov. 2007 <http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/dynaweb/adaccess/@Generic__CollectionView>.

(Click here to continue to the accompanying photo essay.)

[1] Harris, Brayton. Blue & Gray in Black & White. Dulles: Batsford Brassey, 1999.

[2] Coopersmith, Andrew S. Fighting Words: An Illustrated History of Newspaper Accounts of the Civil War. New York: New, 2004.

[3] The Library of Congress. American Memory. 13 Aug. 2007. The Government of the United States. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html>.

[4] Cobb, Josephine. “Photographers of the Civil War.” Military Affairs 26.3 (1962): 127-135.

[5] The J. Paul Getty Museum. “Timothy H. O’Sullivan.” The Getty. J. Paul Getty Trust. 26 Oct. 2007 <http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1928>.

[6] Nickles, Sandra and Joe D. Thomas. “Pictures of the Civil War.” The National Archives. The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://www.archives.gov/research/civil-war/photos/index.html>.

In this, a Nation but Newly Formed, the foment of Change falls upon us, and many know not where to turn. Some will turn to God, and some to the Politicians. Some will rise up, calling for Action; others will pursue the accumulation of Wealth. Yet all must base their actions upon something, upon some Precedent, whether they be aware of this Truth or no. Nothing that is human stands free of History, and all that is human Contributes to this great Tide. In this knowledge, I, William J. Carter, submit this plan for the establishment of a new Community, that of New Alexandria, which will seek to rebuild the Might of that Ancient Library of Alexandria, lost to Fire and Time. Within this community, shall Knowledge be available to All and preserved for All, so that the peoples of this the United States may know from what History their actions Follow, and what History they further Create. So shall No Man be able to state that he knew not what he did or what might come from it, and No Secret be lost to those who may wish it Hidden. All will be Recorded, all will be Protected, and all will be Witnessed, by those who heed the call of this New Alexandria.

At the very Center of this Community shall be the Great Library, around which all Else shall Revolve. It shall be Vast, and land shall be left open around it, so that it may Gain in Size, as it must do with time. All shall be stone within this Library, and all paved around it, for some Distance, so that it shall not Fall to the Consuming Fire which destroyed its ancient Predecessor. Around it, at some distance, shall also be the stately Dormitories, within which all who Serve the Library will reside. Halls for lectures and Education of both Residents and those who come seeking Knowledge shall also be Built about the dormitories. All land else shall be open for Development and for Cultivation by the Residents of New Alexandria, with only the Warning that such use must not Endanger or prevent the inevitable Growth of the Library proper.

All may come to Serve the Library. Not One shall be turned away, excepting he who is so Dogmatic in any belief Whatsoever, be it God or Science, or the causes of Politics or Man, that he may not put the pursuit and Preservation of All Knowledge above that of his own Petty Cause. Certainly, the Library shall perhaps most quickly draw Men of Learning, of Culture and high Literacy; and such will be first encouraged to come, as they may place the Foundation of Knowledge upon which the Library shall Flourish and Grow. But above the Men of acknowledged Learning may come also any who wish to Learn and to also contribute to the Collection of Knowledge and the Setting Down of History. He who was once a Slave may come, so that he may tell us of the Life and the Origins of Darker Men and instruct us in the Traditions and Lore that may remain from far Africa; so also may Women come, to Set Down the experiences of their Gender and to attest to what they Best Know, be it only the Raising of Children or the Stories of their Grandfathers. All knowledge is Knowledge, and all Experience is History, and though the Educated may be its Best and First Guardian, its Formation and Protection is limited not only to their Ranks.

Those who wish to Dwell in New Alexandria and to work within its Great Library must live within its Dormitories. These Penitents may freely seek Employment elsewhere or endeavor to Establish Businesses in the surrounding Lands, but also must they devote a Certain expanse of Time and Labor each week to the Upkeep and Maintenance of the Library; the Compiling and Printing of Works of Knowledge, to be Distributed and Sold beyond the bounds of New Alexandria; and the Education of those who come seeking Knowledge. Also must they contribute One Tenth of whatever Income they may Acquire to the Library, for the Growth of its Collection. Such Contribution may also be in the Equivalent Value of Written Works, be they Periodicals, Works of Fiction, Works of Science, of Great Thinkers, or indeed of any Material which may serve to Preserve and to Further the body of Human Knowledge.

No Man shall be Permitted to remove Works from the Library, but all Men shall be permitted to Study them within its Confines and many great Rooms shall be built within it for this Sole Purpose. At all Hours, shall the Penitents of the Library be hard at Work, Reading through these Works and Assembling the Knowledge there held into Materials more Succinct and suitable for the Understanding of the Common Man, which shall, as Aforementioned, be Compiled and Published. Also will the Library, which shall be Governed by Myself and a Council of its Members, chosen from those who have given not the most Money but the most Time to the Library, seek to Attract and Entertain Authorities and Figures of Interest and Renown, who may Lecture the People at Large and those of the Library in the Subjects on which they are considered Expert. So shall Knowledge both come to New Alexandria and be Dispersed from it, so that it remain always within the Flow of History, both Guarding and Freeing Knowledge for all of this great United States.

Thus, I, William J. Carter, submit this plan for your Inspection, you who Pass by and Read. Build with me this New Alexandria, so that, though the Nation be Caught Up in its own Waves of Change, Knowledge shall have Safe Haven within its Borders and nothing shall be Lost and Nothing Hidden. To any who see the Worth of this Cause, to those who Know or those who wish to Know and Weep to see anything lost to the Dark, join with me. Such an Endeavor is the Worthiest of all that is Man.

The Patriot begins with historical omission, simplifying the conflict between British homeland and North American colonies by sidestepping the political issues over which the war began. The protagonist, Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), dismisses taxation issues in one sentence at a town meeting early in the film; after that, legal and political grievances with Britain disappear from the narrative. The rebel characters say they fight for freedom, for revenge, for God, for family – but none of them mentions violations of natural rights, taxation, historical events such as the Boston Massacre, the exhortations of historical figures such as Thomas Paine, or any other non-abstract reasons for taking up arms. In the film, the rebels fight for Good; fighting for a cause driven by the historical context of the war would muddy the black-and-white lines with which The Patriot streamlines itself as an easily-consumed action movie.

The film goes further in its attempt to do away with ambiguities and buy the audience’s easy sympathy for “their” American side: it whitewashes slavery in colonial history. The opening scenes of The Patriot show very happy-looking black men and women working on Benjamin Martin’s farm; the film neglects the question of slavery (are these people slaves, as a viewer with some historical knowledge would likely assume them to be?) for long minutes, finally revealing that these workers are “free men” only when the British arrive and attempt to usher them into conscription. Guilt of slavery falls thus not on Benjamin Martin, the South Carolina farmer, but on the British. The film also never shows a scene of confirmed slaves working or any suggestions of abuse of slaves. The token slave soldier character enters the army of his own free will (he signs the enlistment document voluntarily); gains his freedom, the audience is told, while fighting; and continues to fight of his own free will. His master, shown once, does not show up to protest the loss of his slave to freedom, nor does the film consider what will happen to the ex-slave after the war – will a slaveholding society recognize his freedom? What will his quality of life be? Similarly, Benjamin Martin hides his refugee family from the British in a small village of black men, women, and children; but the film chooses not to explain who these people are and why they accept the white soldiers so easily. Are these people runaway slaves? Are they a community of slaves serving a slaveholder nearby? In the first case, they would be fugitives from white male landowners; in the other, they would be owned by them – yet no tension rises up between the soldiers and the villagers. For all intents and purposes, all the slaves appear to have been freed in The Patriot’s colonies; audiences can cheer for the rebels without worrying about what it means for slaveholders to fight for freedom.

These two omissions – that of politics and that of slavery – illustrate the view of American history which Roland Emmerich’s The Patriot seeks to seduce viewers into sharing: One in which blameless “Americans,” free of selfish motive or moral flaw, defended themselves against the “foreign” British. In such a world, the Revolutionary War becomes inevitable; and an audience may indulge in the violence and nationalism of the film without being held back by complicated questions of hypocrisy or relativity. The British can then be shot down by the underdogs, just as are the aliens in Emmerich’s Independence Day, without any justification offered.

[1] “Roland Emmerich.” The Internet Movie Database. 2007. Amazon.com. 22 Sept. 2007 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000386/.

[2] The Patriot. Dir. Roland Emmerich. Perf. Mel Gibson, Heath Ledger, Joely Richardson, Jason Isaacs, and Chris Cooper. DVD. Columbia, 2000.

As a woman running away from slavery in the British North American colonies (and later, the U.S.), you could be fairly certain that your master valued your life far less than his own. However, he might also value your life as worth substantially less than that of the man beside you, the brother or husband with whom you were running to freedom. A comparison of the rewards offered for couples (and several mixed-gender groups) in ads collected at The Geography of Slavery in Virginia* indicates that the value of female slaves may have differed from that of male slaves at some points in history; the reward differences may indicate the differing uses to which slaveholders put men and women or the changing views of the colonial society at large, among many other factors.

This conclusion draws on ads listing runaway couples, allowing the comparison of the price offered for the woman and that offered for the man.** Several early slaveowners offered equal rewards for the return of male and female slaves (one pistole each, in two cases, in 1739 [1] and 1745 [2]). However, only a few years later, others drew clear value distinctions. One 1751 slaveowner offered a half pistole for a young woman and two for a woman and her child, compared to three for a single man [3]; in 1770, 20 shillings served for return of a 19-year-old woman – but double that amount for her brother’s capture [4]. The bounty on another pair of sister-brother escapees, in 1774, came to 20 shillings for the sister, three pounds for the brother [5].

However, in some of the later ads, the ad-placers again offered equal rewards. A 1789 slaveholder took care to note that the reward for capture of a husband and wife was 10 dollars for each [6]. In 1795 and 1797, the separate rewards for “halves” of a couple stood at five dollars (in 1795) and ten dollars (1797) each [7, 8].

If this (very small) sample group is taken to represent a historical trend (equal value followed by lesser value for women followed by a return to equal value), what could the change in rewards indicate? Without a much wider sample group and a deeper study of the context in which they were written, no solid generalizations can be made. However, a reader can still form some ideas. In the early history of slavery, perhaps slaves, being more of a rarity and less readily acquired, were held in equal value for work – a slaveholder might not have the luxury of differentiating between male and female slaves when any slave was difficult to replace. Later, when the colonies were better established and slavery and the slave trade more firmly entrenched, slaveholders might have greater opportunity and financial ability to pick and choose; men could be trained and used for fieldwork, while (at least some) women could be set aside to learn household tasks and provide the colonists with house slaves. Female slaves would then be a consumer convenience; men, an economic necessity. A change in the social climate – following the Revolutionary War and its use of words like “freedom,” “equality,” and “justice” as calls-to-arms – may have led slaveholders to again be more careful of their slaves; opportunities and impetus for escape and hopes of freedom may have increased among slaves and keeping them in check may have become more important. Perhaps also the return to equal rewards reflected unconscious changes in values by the slaveholders and their surrounding society, acknowledging the couples less as livestock than as individuals. Or perhaps the slaveholders were simply afraid that, in this new nation, still to establish itself in trade, slaves might again become less easy to obtain.

Regardless of the exact causes or the representative quality of the sample, this fluctuation in the rewards offered for female slaves may still point to changing economic and social conditions within the North American colonies, as well as to differences in individual slaveholders’ perceptions of slaves. Further exploration and comparison of advertisements might yield more insights into these possible changes.

* Considering the size of The Geography of Slavery in Virginia’s collection of runaway ads, I decided to limit my search of the ads to young women (largely women 20 or younger) and to include examples of pregnant runaways and runaways accompanied by men whenever possible. From 1736-1763, very few ads for escaped women were available, so, for this period, the search criteria were widened to include all ages.

** A number of ads included in the spreadsheet give a set reward for return of a couple, not individual rewards for return of the man and of the woman. Due to space constraints, these are not considered in this post.

[1] Virginia Gazette (Parks), Williamsburg, October 26 to November 2, 1739.
[2] Virginia Gazette (Parks), Williamsburg, From November 14 to November 21, 1745.
[3] Virginia Gazette (Hunter), Williamsburg, May 24, 1751.
[4] Virginia Gazette (Purdie & Dixon), Williamsburg, December 13, 1770.
[5] Virginia Gazette (Purdie & Dixon), Williamsburg, June 16, 1774.
[6] Virginia Independent Chronicle (Davis), Richmond, July 15, 1789.
[7] Advertiser (Davis), Richmond, July 29, 1795.
[8] Norfolk Herald (Willett and O’Connor), Norfolk, July 20, 1797.