Source Analysis: Plutarch (2^nd century CE)

This week I have spent most of my time looking through my different sources trying to figure out exactly which direction that I am wanting to go with my topic; I'm obviously a little behind here. I have narrowed it down to what I think will hopefully be approved, but in order to do so I still have a lot of sources to go through. As for my main focus this week, I am waiting on a source by Plutarch that will discuss the Spartacus war in a little bit more in depth from the Roman point of view, as it has more to do with Marcus Crassus. I decided for this post to go into a source by Plutarch though to explain the Spartacus story in a little more depth to explain why I like to study it as much as I do.

In this source Plutarch basically just gives an outline of the entire Spartacus war. Spartacus was a gladiator who was able to, with the help of 73 other gladiators, escape the house of his owner, Lentulus Batiatus, with the use of kitchen tools. The gladiators were then lucky to come across a cart headed for another lunista that was full of swords and other gladiator weapons (Shaw, 131). The men were then cornered on Vesuvius and were able to escape by making ladders out of grape vines and going down the side of the mountain. Spartacus’ men beat several of the Roman Consuls, and were threatening the welfare of the entire Republic. Because the empire was fighting other wars as well, the senate then hired Marcus Crassus to raise and lead an army to defeat Spartacus. There are many stories that go into detail of these two’s armies going to battle within Plutarch’s writing. (Shaw, 132-133)  

The most interesting part of the whole story to me though is the final battle where Spartacus meets his end. Plutarch, as well as others, go into mass amount of detail about this final battle. Spartacus kills his horse before it begins in front of his men as a sort of battle cry. Spartacus then charged after Crassus himself with just a few around him. Spartacus was eventually killed in the attempt, and shockingly enough his body was never identified. (Shaw, 136-137) To me this is the type of history that has a tendency to become a sort of legend, as it has. Though much of what Plutarch has to say can seem hard to believe, we have other sources that agree with him; Appian as an example. In my paper I am going to look into the circumstances that allowed this war to occur, and Plutarch will be one the main authors that I use to do so.   

Ashley Blog #2: Motl Kuritsky and the Anykščaia Massacre

This week I received a book in ILL, and was very excited to see that the entire second half of the book was devoted to translations of Lithuanian Holocaust survivors’ testimonies. It certainly makes my job a bit easier! Over the next few weeks, I’m going to be critically evaluating these primary sources to see what they reveal about the motives of the Lithuanian pro-Nazi volunteers. These testimonies will be particularly useful for their descriptions of the Lithuanians that volunteered to help the Nazis and the reactions of both Jews and Lithuanians to the German occupation. I’ve included the citation and analysis below. For the purposes of this blog post, I focused solely on a particularly chilling testimony by a man named Motl Kuritsky, from the town of Anykščaia.  

Bankier, David, ed. Holocaust Testimonials from Provincial Lithuania. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2012.

In his retelling of the events of June 29, 1941, when the Jewish men of his town were isolated in synagogues and tortured, Motl Kuritsky reveals the unbridled violence of the Lithuanian partisans after they stormed Anykščaia. From his testimony it is revealed that the Lithuanians raped Jewish women and dehumanized the Jewish men before brutally killing “more than 30 men” (Bankier 180).

Kuritsky begins his testimony by stating that the Lithuanian partisans entered his town and removed men from the synagogues, all while “removing a number of pretty young girls from their homes and raping them in the streets and yards” (Bankier 180). One Jewish man, laying down beside her husband, was commanded to accompany the partisans, to which her husband pleaded, “Don’t take my wife” (Bankier 181). In response to this, the partisans “stepped on his throat and choked him” (Bankier 181). Yet another girl, whom Kuritsky names as Dobke Dubinovsky, was “brought unconscious into the synagogue after being raped,” and afterward admitted that the Lithuanians had “held… her hands and feet while the rest of them raped her” (Bankier 181). Kuritsky also reveals that “only a few women” survived these encounters (Bankier 181).

The Lithuanian partisans’ actions toward the Jewish men were equally ruthless. Jewish men were required by the partisans to bury their dead neighbors, at which point they were shot themselves. Additionally, those men that they did manage to herd into the synagogues were “forced to strip naked;” Kuritsky describes “the sounds of blows – from shovels, iron rods, clubs and whips – to the bodies of the Jews inside the synagogues,” as well as the sound of “cries from the beaten men, strange heartrending howls from Jews with cracked skulls, their hands, legs, and ribs broken” (Bankier 181-182). He finishes by describing the Lithuanians of the town, whose neighbors cried out to them as they were being murdered, saying they “stood with their women and children and happily grabbed the bloody clothes” of those that were killed (Bankier 182).

From his testimony, Kuritsky reveals the mercilessness of the Lithuanian partisans as they beat, raped, and murdered his neighbors. Particularly unnerving is his description of his own Lithuanian neighbors, who watched the attacks joyfully, ignoring the cries of the dying. While his testimony reveals little of the motives behind these attacks, it is nevertheless clear that the perpetrators behind the massacre in Anykščaia were Lithuanian, with no mention of the German SS at all. 

The Troubles #2: Bloody Sunday - McKenzie Morrow

I was having a bit of trouble finding primaries for my topic over The Troubles, but last Thursday I actually encountered quite a few. Northern Ireland has created an online archive called CAIN that pertains specifically to the conflict that occurred from the 1960s to the 1990s. Through that website, I have acquired many letters, newspaper articles and also photographs. This website, http://cain.ulst.ac.uk, has actually helped me realize that I need to narrow my topic of choice. Therefore, I now wish to further look into Bloody Sunday, a major event that happened on Sunday, January 30th, 1972. An event that left 13 people dead, it can be argued that it was a crucial moment for the nationalist party. When British soldiers fired on a group unarmed people during a civil rights protest, many bystanders began to favor the nationalism/republicanism, and the IRA in particular (Melaugh).

William L Rukeyser is an American reporter who was actually able to capture Bloody Sunday on camera. I plan to use his photographs as my visuals in my paper. One such photograph, One of the Dead portrays the seriousness of the event. This Irish protester, identity suspected to be Barney McGuigan, was covered with a blanket. He was an unarmed civilian, as many who were at the event attested to (Melaugh). According to Melaugh, McGuigan and the other protesters were only throwing stones at the British officers. While I'm sure there is more to be gleaned from this photographs and the others Rukeyser took, I feel that just having pictures makes Bloody Sunday seem more real and adds to the gravity of the situation. 

In addition to photographs, Rukeyser also obtained audio recorded statements about Bloody Sunday. I'm not sure how or if I even can use these in my paper, but I'm happy to find that they exist. Currently, I am relying heavily on the CAIN website for my primary sources, but I am still searching for memoirs and autobiographies that pertain to The Troubles. Court documents from Ireland, Northern Ireland, and Great Britain, I have found are also available online. While I appreciate the objectivity of court documents, the statements from the civilians are truly invaluable to me. They provide the emotional aspect that is required to reveal the severity of this modern conflict. A quote that I found quite moving from Coroner Major Hubert O'Neill stated: "This Sunday became known as Bloody Sunday and bloody it was. It was quite unnecessary. It strikes me that the Army ran amok that day and shot without thinking what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people.These people may have been taking part in a march that was banned but that does not justify the troops coming in and firing live rounds indiscriminately. I would say without hesitation that it was sheer, unadulterated murder. It was murder" (Melaugh). Statements like this and pictures such as One of the Dead, I believe are going to really help develop my paper. 

Chicago citation for the CAIN website:

Melaugh, Martin. "Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972- Summary of Main Events." CAIN. June 17, 2010. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/sum.htm.

2nd post- primary sources

This weekend was a huge step in a good direction for me, since I have finally narrowed down a topic, and began looking for primary sources. Focusing on Blackfacing and Negro Vaudeville minstrel music, I decided to look for some of the music and look for the implications that might be present within the lyrics. Thus far, I have found five songs that were performed and/or written by Blackface performers in the 19th century.

One of the songs, it is believed, was written by a performer named Daniel Decatur Emmett. He was the founder of the first troupe to perform Blackface minstrel music in the 1860's.His song, I'm going home to Dixie, was created as sequel to Dixie's Land, a song sung by the Confederate during the Civil War which was also written by Emmett. Throughout the song, the lyrics are meant to state that the South was better for the Africans than anywhere else. Several lines such as "O list to what I've got to say, Freedom to me will never pay", and "In Dixie land the fields do bloom, and color'd men have welcome room" emphasis that Freedom isn't needed, and that they are welcome and at home in the South.

Since this song was published the year the Civil War broke out in 1861, it caused quite a controversy and was extremely popular with minstrel groups, especially Blackface groups who wished to express that they believed the Blacks preferred to be in the South, and that they wished to return to their masters who had freed them. It was a form of rebellion against the Northern views, hidden within musical lyrics and performing.

Second Blog: Titanic

I experienced a lot of progress this past weekend when I went to visit family in Poplar Bluff. I was able to go to the library there and found three more books, one primary and two secondary sources as well as a documentary film about the life of Molly Brown. The documentary was a biography of Molly Brown who was born in Missouri and survived the Titanic. If you have seen the movie, her character is played by Kathy Bates. Only a short part of the film discussed the Titanic, however I felt it was useful placing the event in the context of other historical events of the time and it was interesting to learn about the life of Molly Brown because it made the research I am doing feel more personal.

A little bit about Molly Brown:
She was born in Hannibal, Mo in 1867.
She went from rags to riches after she moved to Colorado during the gold rush and married a man who owned a mining company who later became one of the richest men in the U.S. at the time after his mine struck gold. The Browns were able to send their daughter to school in Paris, which is who she was visiting when she found out from her son that her grandchild was sick in the U.S. This is why she bought a ticket for the Titanic. When the Titanic began to sink, Molly didn't want to get on a lifeboat because she was trying to help everyone else get on boats. Two men picked her up and forced her to get in a lifeboat. It seems that Brown was a very caring and selfless individual who took charge of the situation and comforted the other survivors after they were rescued by the crew of the Carpathia. She raised $5000 dollars as a donation for the Carpathia crew. She stated that her only regret was that she could not help more people during the sinking of the ship. On the tenth anniversary of the Titanic sinking, in 1922, Molly visited the grave site of the Titanic victims in Nova Scotia, because she always felt a connection to the Titanic. She was a huge supporter of women's rights and was one of the first women in the U.S. to run for congress. She died in 1932 at the age of 65 after suffering from a stroke.

One of the secondary sources I found is Down with the Old Canoe: A Cultural History of the Titanic Disaster by Steven Biel. I felt a small aha moment when reading this book because it has helped me understand some of the historical debates about the Titanic and I discovered that Biel is a revisionist historian for this topic. The book will be very useful for the historiographical assignment. A simple summary of the debate Biel discusses would be that orthodox Titanic historians have argued that the Titanic sinking was a significant event in the beginning of the twentieth century that changed society and marked a turning point in American history. They would describe pre-Titanic America as unified, peaceful, stable, and almost naïve. They view the Titanic sinking as an event was a precursor to the dangers of technology an progress. Biel argues against this, and puts the Titanic in the context of major events and culturally significant problems in the U.S. in 1912 including the suffrage movement, the labor issues, and the race problems including the lynching of African Americans.

Blog 2- Shelby Setzer

So last week I was having trouble finding credible primary sources. Finally I had a breakthrough. The two sources I found are diaries. One diary is from one Samuel Cooper, a pastor who was involved in the Revolution, by preaching as well as being a part of the deliberations about the future of this country. The second source is from General George Washington. This source has been most revealing and helpful.

The diary of Samuel Cooper, written in 1775-1776, contains a lot of information that does not pertain to the Revolution, such as "I slept at ___, din'd with ___." But among all of this information that does not particularly matter, there are a few nuggets of information that can confirm the idea that important meetings took place in taverns. For example, Samuel Cooper says, "They din'd by Invitation of the Congress at Coolidg's Tavern... They formed a Convention immediately after dinner..." (Cooper 309). Samuel goes on to explain the role that these pastors played in the Revolution. He notes that this Convention voted to supply the Army (the Continental Army) with Chaplains. What is really interesting is that this pastor meet up with George Washington, at a tavern. There they had a meeting with George Washington, the Committee of Continental Congress (Cooper 337).

The diary of George Washington has been a lot more revealing than Samuel Cooper. This is probably because this main was at the center of all of this. This part of his diary is important to my paper because it shows the significance of taverns after the revolution was won. It shows the ground work of the nation. As an interesting side note, there was a benefit concert held at the City Tavern. The concert included classical music to be performed for the delegates of the Convention (Washington 299). I suppose it was naive of me to think that benefit concerts were a modern day thing, but it is so interesting to find out that there were benefit concerts in 1787!

The Fort Pillow Massacre: A Fresh Examination of the Evidence

The Battle of Fort Pillow was undisputedly a gruesome battle. However, accounts vary widely whether the Confederate forces went beyond the conventions of war to brutally murder Union soldiers who were attempting to surrender. The varying accounts of what happened in the battle create tensions on either side of the debate and skew much of the attempts at historical evaluation of the "massacre". "The Fort Pillow Massacre: A Fresh Examination of the Evidence" is truly what the title says, a fresh examination of the evidence attempted without bias. The author, Albert Castel, is a few generations removed from the debate and uses comparative testimony to evaluate the claim that the Confederate's overstepped conventional war. Since the debate is so charged with bias, he is forced to confront what his personal views are before he can even begin weighing in on the debate. (Castel, p 38). 

Castel concludes that the South was guilty of breaking the conventions of war by killing those who had attempted to surrender. (Castel, p 50) However, he challenges some of the findings by the Congressional investigation, such as the finding that the Confederates used the period of seize fire to strategically advance their soldiers and gain and advantage of position that they otherwise would have never achieved. (Castel, p 41) This analysis is based on testimony that Commander Forrest of the Confederate Army thought that during the seize fire was a delay by the Union forces to bring in support from the river Fort Pillow was stationed on as a gunship looked like it was moving in to provide men and cover fire for the fort. 

Castel's review of the claims by the Congressional investigation at the time were the paramount historical work on Fort Pillow. His work also fueled more historians to jump in on the analysis. However, Castel's findings are from 1958. It will be important for me to find more recent historical analysis on Fort Pillow. This article was a corner stone of historical evaluation on the Battle of Fort Pillow since Castel was a few generations removed from the event, unlike the author's before him, who lived through the event, or grew up in the more immediate wake of the event. My hope is that I will find more works like Castel's and less sources that are examples of sensational history.

Castel, Albert "The Fort Pillow Massacre: A Fresh Examination of the Evidence" Civil War History 4 (March 1958): 37-50.

Blog Post #2 - Primary Source by Sylvia Pankhurst

     This week for my blog post I received one of my sources through MOBIUS, it is a primary source written by Sylvia Pankhurst. It is her memoir of the women’s movement her mother and sister led. The name of the source is The Suffragette Movement an Intimate Account of the Persons and Ideals. This source is especially important to my work on my thesis because it not only offers specific accounts of what happened to these women, but it also offers information from Sylvia’s perspective on the more militant actions of her sister Christabel. Another helpful aspect of this source is how Sylvia quotes newspaper articles from the period as well, directly, thereby giving a fuller picture of the different protests and events going on. The source itself is divided into nine books within the larger text, within each book there are about five to seven chapters devoted to the topic. Some of the chapters I have begun to analyze include those written on their militant tactics, forced feedings, the flight of Christabel Pankhurst, and arson.

     Sylvia’s chapter on the militant tactics of the Suffragettes begins rather early in her memoir, before the fracturing of the WSPU [Women’s Social and Political Union]. Christabel and Sylvia had a fractured relationship later during the movement due to Christabel’s desire for more militant tactics. Her desire came in response to the lack of accomplishments done by the mere protests and rallies. Christabel first responded more actively during a meeting where Annie Kenney asked when women would receive the vote. The men moved to remove Annie from the meeting, so Christabel stood and attempted to defend Annie. She told the officials, “I shall assault you! I shall spit at you,” (Pankhurst 189). Christabel responded exactly how she said she would, by spitting in the face of the police superintendent and hitting others. Sylvia also refers to Annie Kenney regularly in her writings. Annie Kenney became the first working class woman to join the WSPU and fell into an easy friendship with Christabel. The other important aspect about these militant women that one must remember is the pain they endured, especially during their imprisonments and forced feedings.

     The forced feedings of women imprisoned during the movement represent a much darker side of this time. Yes, women acted more violently and destroyed buildings and mail, but they never intentionally harmed people. Yet when they were imprisoned instead of letting them die as martyrs for their cause via a hunger strike the government forced the wardens and nurses to feed these women. Eventually doctors came out to stand against such traumatic experiences stating how much damage this actually caused to the women physically to endure. Sylvia quotes Dr. Forbes Winslow on the results of forced feeding, “seriously to injure the constitution, to lacerate the parts surrounding the mouth, to break and ruin the teeth…to cause dangerous chronic symptoms,” (Pankhurst 317). As evidence from this one quote and the rest of the chapter, I will certainly be exploring the impact of forced feedings on the militancy of the movement. I hope that I will receive other sources from inter-library loan soon. I also plan to begin looking at JSTOR and other databases for newspaper articles and journals discussing these topics.

Here is the Chicago citation for the source:

Pankhurst, Sylvia. The Suffragette Movement an Intimate Account of Persons and Ideals. London: Virago Limited, 1977.