Jillian's Weblog

The Kansas Flag

jilldes — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:40:13 +0000

The Kansas State flag is something that most of us see all the time but never really think about, but our flag has a unique history to it.

In 1915, Kansas was one of just a few states that did not have a flag. This prompted Governor Arthur Capper to write to other states, asking if they had a flag and how they decided on the design. The Daughters of the American Revolution had a contest to design the state flag in 1916, and they picked Lawrence resident Esther Northrup as the winner. Her design was three horizontal stripes of red, white, and blue, with a sunflower and state seal in the corner. The legislature did not accept this design, and Topeka artist Albert T. Reid was asked to design something. His design was a gold sunflower on a blue background and was quite popular, but in 1925 the legislature decided to go with a state banner instead.

Kansas was the only state to be represented by a banner for two years. It was hung from a horizontal bar, and caused a lot of problems. Since hanging it was awkward and you couldn’t march with it, Washington D.C. rejected displaying it. Also, some people saw the sunflower as a weed and didn’t feel that it had a place on the banner.

Finally, Adjutant General McLean pushed Kansas into designing a flag, and one was passed on March 21, 1927. It looked much like the current flag, but the word “Kansas” wasn’t added to the bottom until 1961. All schools became required to display it at that time. One more change was made in 1963, when the size was changed.

I didn’t know the history of the Kansas flag, and I thought it was interesting that it took them 12 years to finally decide on one. Furthermore, I thought it was bizarre that we were represented by a banner for two years when no other state was. I also couldn’t believe that people thought of the sunflower as a lowly weed, because today we’re so proud of our title of the sunflower state.

*http://www.kshs.org/cool2/coolbann.htm

**http://www.kshs.org/research/topics/politics/flag.htm

Women in War Jobs during World War II

jilldes — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:36:00 +0000

The Rosie the Riveter ad campaign was launched during World War II to try to recruit women into the work force. In fact, according to Ad Council, “The War Advertising Council’s Women in War Jobs campaign is the most successful advertising recruitment campaign in American history”* As we discussed in the article we read this week by Peter Fearon, women in the workforce greatly increased in 1943. By February that year, 15 million women participated in the workforce.

One of these women, Mary Brancato, was from Oklahoma but traveled to Wichita to work on airplanes. She had never really been to the “big city” and describes her excitement. She worked on welding tailpipes for B29s at a small airplane parts factory, Davis Westholt. She describes the experience as the most exciting time in her life. She made 40 cents an hour and was able to buy herself lots of clothes. Though it was fun for her, the war was always on everyone’s mind. It caused them all to live for the moment, which she believes is the reason why she married her husband after only three weeks of dating!

She also discusses wartime rationing, which included gas, sugar, meat and tires. She recalls that nylons were hard to find due to rationing, but on the rare occasions she and her friends would go dancing, she used an eyebrow pencil to draw a line down the back of her legs to appear that she wearing them!

Brancato claims that the war changed her life. She decided to continue working throughout her life; she was a mother of four boys and a postal worker for 22 years. She says she probably would have been a stay at home housewife, but because of her work experience during the war she wanted to continue working.

The war changed things for many women. They finally had more options in the job world, and felt that they were helping the war effort at the same time. Broncato said, “I like to think that some of my tailpipes were on the planes that helped end the war.”** It also was a time of excitement for them, because they finally got to know what it felt like to make their own money and be able to spend it. I thought this was an interesting account of a women wartime worker!

*http://www.adcouncil.org/default.aspx?id=128

**http://www.nps.gov/pwro/collection/website/mary.htm

Santa Fe Depot

jilldes — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:02:37 +0000

I spent this past 4^th of July weekend with some friends in Leavenworth. We were planning on going somewhere to eat, so we decided to go to a diner called the Santa Fe Depot diner. I expected it to be just like any other diner, but when we got there it was much different. The diner actually used to be a train station. I thought it was interesting and cute so I looked up the history of it. It was built in 1887 as a as a station for the Fort Leavenworth/Kansas City Interurban Railway and a passenger depot for the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. In the 1930s, it became a freight depot, until 1982 when it stopped operating. Since then (obviously) it has been used as a restaurant, and was even added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.

I found it really interesting eating there because they have not changed the setup or the architecture. Everything inside looks how you would expect an 1800s railroad stop to look. The dining area is separated into different rooms. It was interesting because the room in which we ate had a sign painted on the door that said “men’s waiting area” – they had separate waiting rooms for men and women. It was a really cute restaurant with pictures of railroad themes everywhere, and a really great breakfast menu with the names of orders such as “the conductor”. If you ever find yourself in Leavenworth, you should check it out!

http://www.lvks.org/egov/apps/locations/facilities.egov?path=detail&locId=25

http://www.travelks.com/s/index.cfm?LID=2498&QString=TripSearch%3Da%26Keywords%3D%26Page%3D498

1943 Guide to Hiring Women

jilldes — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:54:38 +0000

A while ago my friend received an e-mail with an article titled “1943 Guide to Hiring Women” from Transportation Magazine. She showed it to me and I thought it was really entertaining. It was written for the intended audience of male supervisors during World War II of women in the work force. The article gives eleven different “Tips on Getting More Efficiency Out of Women Employers.” They are as follows:

1. Pick young married women. They usually have more of a sense of responsibility than their unmarried sisters, they’re less likely to be flirtatious, they need the work or they wouldn’t be doing it, they still have the pep and interest to work hard and to deal with the public efficiently.

2. When you have to use older women, try to get ones who have worked outside the home at some time in their lives. Older women who have never contacted the public have a hard time adapting themselves and are inclined to be cantankerous and fussy. It’s always well to impress upon older women the importance of friendliness and courtesy.

3. General experience indicates that “husky” girls – those who are just a little on the heavy side – are more even tempered and efficient than their underweight sisters.

4. Retain a physician to give each woman you hire a special physical examination – one covering female conditions. This step not only protects the property against the possibilities of lawsuit, but reveals whether the employee-to-be has any female weaknesses which would make her mentally or physically unfit for the job.

5. Stress at the outset the importance of time the fact that a minute or two lost here and there makes serious inroads on schedules. Until this point is gotten across, service is likely to be slowed up.

6. Give the female employee a definite day-long schedule of duties so that they’ll keep busy without bothering the management for instructions every few minutes. Numerous properties say that women make excellent workers when they have their jobs cut out for them, but that they lack initiative in finding work themselves.

7. Whenever possible, let the inside employee change from one job to another at some time during the day. Women are inclined to be less nervous and happier with change.

8. Give every girl an adequate number of rest periods during the day. You have to make some allowances for feminine psychology. A girl has more confidence and is more efficient if she can keep her hair tidied, apply fresh lipstick and wash her hands several times a day.

9. Be tactful when issuing instructions or in making criticisms. Women are often sensitive; they can’t shrug off harsh words the way men do. Never ridicule a woman – it breaks her spirit and cuts off her efficiency.

10. Be reasonably considerate about using strong language around women. Even though a girl’s husband or father may swear vociferously, she’ll grow to dislike a place of business where she hears too much of this.

11. Get enough size variety in operator’s uniforms so that each girl can have a proper fit. This point can’t be stressed too much in keeping women happy.*

Some points give tips on how to get each woman through the work day. It’s as if they believe that women are so incapable of doing a good job at work that they need to be guided as if they are children.

The last few points discuss how to keep the woman happy in her job, such as allowing them rest periods, not criticizing them harshly, keeping the bad language to a minimum, and making sure their uniforms fit them properly. This implies that women are delicate and fragile, so they need to be extra careful not to offend them. It also makes it a huge point to make sure that they look nice so that they feel their best.

The first few points deal with which type of woman to hire. I found it hilarious the stereotypes involved in using these different types of women, such as that old women are “fussy” and “cantankerous” and that “husky” girls are more efficient. How ridiculous!

Recently in class we discussed Mary Elizabeth Lease and the absurd things that people said about her. This article, published in 1943, may be an improvement from Lease’s time but still a horrible view into what men thought of women. I thought it would be interesting to share another glimpse of men’s point of view from a different time period.

*http://www.puppiesandflowers.com/archives/2008/02/1943_guide_to_hiring_women.html

Run to the Hills

jilldes — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:25:29 +0000

The other night I was taking part in a trivia game, and one of the categories was something about hit songs. When the answer to one of the questions was Iron Maiden’s “Run to the Hills”, my friend leaned over to me and said, “did you know that song was about the whites’ treatment of Native Americans?” I have heard the song before and I’ll even admit to liking it, but I had never listened that closely. The only lyrics I actually knew were the chorus. I went home and looked up the lyrics to the song on songmeanings.net:

White man came across the sea
Brought us pain and misery
Killed our tribes killed our creed
Took our game for his own need

We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?

Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom a stab in the back
Women and children and cowards attack

Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives

Soldier blue on the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Indians are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old

Run to the hills, run for your lives*

I thought it the song was really interesting because of the way it was written. The beginning is from the perspective of the Native Americans, and then the music gets more intense and the perspective shifts to that of the white Europeans. This is what I think the writer of the song, Steve Harris of Iron Maiden, was referring to when he said “I wanted to try and get the feeling of galloping horses.”** The last part was written from a third-person point of view. It’s interesting that the writer of the song made his point on the side of favoring the Native Americans, and to make his point clearer he wrote it from different perspectives. Also, I just thought it was cool that an 80’s hair metal band, which are not often noted for their intelligence or knowledge of historic issues, felt so strongly about the subject that they wanted to express their opinion on it.

*http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=11365
**http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2923

Flora Richardson

jilldes — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:11:25 +0000

I went to the KU history website and browsed the “This Week In KU History” section and found an interesting article about Flora Richardson. On June 11, 1873, Richardson became not only a member of the first graduating class at the University of Kansas, but also the first female graduate in KU history. Not only did she make grades good enough to become valedictorian, she was an involved student – she participated in the Oread Literary Society, started a new sorority (which later became Pi Beta Phi), and completed the first student-made entomology collection at the University. After she graduated, she became a teacher, one of the only professions available to women at the time. However, her education did not end there – in 1875, KU awarded her with a Master of Arts degree. She did some additional post-grad study thereafter, joined one of the US’s first book clubs, and received yet another degree after four years of home study. Richardson was also an activist for women’s rights. In her obituary, her daughter wrote:

There has been no movement for the benefit of her community or for women and children that did not receive her ardent support. Women’s suffrage, the women’s rest room, the various plans to provide high school privileges for rural pupils and the farm bureau for rural women, each in their turn were things she was untiring in her efforts to secure.*

I thought that Flora Richardson was a really interesting person in Kansas history. During this time period, it seemed to be a pretty big deal that the university accepted women. This was a time when the fight for women’s rights was just beginning, as we read in our core reading by Craig Miner, and Richardson is a wonderful example of this. I found it interesting that Flora Richardson was not just a woman who was admitted to KU in a time when it was controversial to do so, but she went above and beyond by being an involved, model student and achieving post-graduate education.

*from the KU History Website article

Indian Removal

jilldes — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:38:54 +0000

According to www.thefreedictionary.com, nationalism is defined as: “1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one’s nation, 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals, 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.” Based on this definition, is the government’s policy on Indian removal an example of American nationalism? If so, why?

I can see how one could say that the government’s policy of Indian removal can be considered nationalistic. The government did what they felt was best for the nation, and was trying to expand their lands for their own interests, which fits the first definition. The second definition discusses nations benefiting from “acting independently rather than collectively,” which is exactly what the government did. Instead of coming together with the Indian peoples and incorporating them into part of the collective whole, the white people progressed towards bettering themselves only and pushed the Indians elsewhere. As for the third definition, though the country was dominated by native peoples as opposed to foreigners, the white people treated them as foreigners and aimed to take over the country. While the situation mostly fits all three definitions of nationalism, I think this extreme case would be categorized as ethnocentrism. From www.thefreedictionary.com, ethnocentrism is defined as “belief in the superiority of one’s own ethnic group.” An 1833 quote from President Andrew Jackson on the Indian peoples is the quintessence of ethnocentrism:

“They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential…Established in the midst of a superior race…they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear”*

President Jackson comes right out and states that he is a member of a “superior” race. Also, the government not only sent away the Indian population; it sent them to a place that Zebulon Pike and Stephen Long had described as uninhabitable. It’s like saying that since the white people are so superior, they have the right to the better land. What the government did was in fact nationalistic because they were doing it for the country’s best interest, but they also did so at the expense of another people, who were considered inferior. So in conclusion, I think that the government’s Indian removal policy was more an example of ethnocentrism than it was nationalism.

*from Kristen Epps lecture, June 6, 2008