City life in the united states since 1880

AHIS318Paper2Guidelines21.docx

Home >History homework help >American history homework help >City life in the united states since 1880

Due: April 11 by midnight via Blackboard

The Challenge

In your previous paper, you chose from two primary sources to analyze – two different accounts of sweatshop life. This time, I want you to choose your own primary source to analyze, with some guidance. These primary sources will highlight wartime work in cities during WWII, migration and immigration patterns to cities in the WWII era (including the Second Great Migration) and the Harlem Riots of 1943. You will have two options for choosing your source:

Option One: The Rosie the Riveter World War II American Home Front oral history project from the Bancroft Library. This oral history project features interviews with wartime defense workers, many of them women. Many of these interviewees describe leaving rural areas to pursue work in cities during the war. To find your source:

1. Access the collection here: https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/libraries/bancroft-library/oral-history-center/projects/rori

2. Click on “See all interviews” Browse through the descriptions of oral history interviews (most of them are videos and transcripts) to get a sense of what is covered in the video. You can browse through the transcript, or if you click on the video, they usually have an index outlining the topics covered.

3. Look for a source the highlights what it was like to move from a rural area to a city for wartime defense work, and perhaps even a source that highlights what it was like to be part of the Second Great Migration.

4. Interviews I would particularly recommend: Mary Newson, Dorothy Eng, Mary Head, and Elizabeth Tate. You can search for these names in the search bar after clicking “see all interviews.”

Once you choose your source, you will write an analysis of it. As in your previous paper, imagine that you are explaining your primary source to someone who has not read it, and you want them to understand why the source is historically significant. You want to provide them with a basic summary of the source, and then place the source it its historical context to explain why this source is important for understanding the historical event you chose. Your analysis will be 3 – 4 pages. Your analysis must contain the following parts:

1. An introduction with a crystal-clear argument about why this source is important for understanding the historical time period it is covering. What does this oral history interview add to our understanding of migration patterns to cities during WWII, or what wartime/immediate post-war period was like in cities? Does it highlight trends we have already discussed? Does it add a new perspective to this history?

2. After your introduction, introduce your source and give a brief summary of it. Explain everything you know about the who, what, where, when, and why: who created the source, when it was created, where it was created, why it was created, and a summary of what the source says. The oral history transcript will tell you the name of the interviewer, the interviewee, and when the interview was conducted/recorded. You want to make sure to include this in your introduction.

3. Once you have introduced the source, you want to put the interview in historical context. In this case, you want to use what you know about cities in the decades around WWII to explain how this source highlights some of the trends we have learned about. You want to make sure to draw historical context from: the lecture on “wartime cities,” the Zoot Suit Riot documentary, the podcast on the Detroit riots, and chapter 4 of Jon Teaford’s The Twentieth Century American City. You will likely also find it useful to draw from the week 10 lectures on the civil rights movement. Depending on the interview, you may also find it helpful to include information on the post-War years as well, like the lectures from week 9, or chapter 5 of your textbook.

4. In concluding, give the reader a sense of the potential bias of the source. In other words, is the interview a reliable source from what you know of the time period? For example, does the other evidence from class support some of the points the interviewee makes? Is the interviewee’s experience widely applicable to others? Another thing to think about is, how many years have passed between the events and the interview. Does this impact the interviewee’s memory of the events? Also, how might the interviewer’s questions influence what the interviewee remembers or how they discuss events? Is there anything the interviewee seems reluctant to talk about or might have glossed over? Finally, despite potential bias, why is this source important for understanding this historical period?

Formatting Guidelines

· Papers are to be 3-4 pages

· Papers should be in 12-point Times New Roman font with standard one-inch margins and double spaced. There should be extra spaces between paragraphs.

· Please include an original title for the paper (not just Paper 2- try to pick a title that reflects what you are saying in the paper!)

· Please include a heading with your name, the class name, and the date (do not double space this, it takes up too much space)

· I prefer for the paper to be uploaded as Word Documents so that I can easily comment on your paper. I will accept PDFs if you are unable to upload a word Document, but I am unable to read Pages documents.

· Citations should be Chicago style footnotes or endnotes for your sources, including lectures if you are quoting. Please use footnotes or endnotes, not parenthetical citations with a bibliography. When the source has page numbers, please provide the page number you are referring to in your citation. To cite a lecture simply: Tina Peabody, “Title of lecture” is sufficient.

· To cite an online oral history interview in Chicago style: Name of interviewee, interview by name of interviewer, date of interview, location of interview, transcript, Name of Institution, location of institution, available online at URL

· To cite a newspaper article: Author’s name, “title in quotes,” Name of Newspaper in italics (location if not specified in newspaper title), date of article.

· Note: If you choose a letter to the editor, the citation is the same as above except you replace the title of the article with “Letter to the Editor”

How to Ace this Assignment

· Pick the interview or newspaper article you feel you have a lot to say about, and that you feel allows you to make the most connections to course material. If you are having trouble finding a source that helps you make connections to class material, get in touch with me and I can help you find something!

· The best papers will not just summarize the source, but will analyze it. Though you start with a summary, this assignment is asking you to go beyond this and analyze the broader meaning of the primary source. The best papers will demonstrate that connections between the sources and the historical context and class materials. A papers will also show creative and original thinking, finding connections between the document and class material that are unexpected and well thought out.

· Use the primary source document we looked at on the first day to help guide you in reading the source and think through its potential biases

· Read the assignment directions and rubric below carefully– ask yourself if you are doing what you need to do for the grade you want. If you are unsure what any of the instructions mean, talk to me before finishing the paper!

Assignment Rubric

	A	B	C	D	E
Assignment Directions and Formatting	Follows all formatting directions. Citations are included with proper formatting. Each required section of the paper is included, and fully fleshed out.	Follows the assignment formatting directions with only a few exceptions. Citations are included and are for the most part properly formatted. Each required section of the paper is included, although one or more sections may be a bit brief or weak.	Attempts to follow formatting directions, but there are several mistakes. Citations are minimal and often improperly formatted. One or more required sections of the paper are missing or difficult to follow.	Has not followed the formatting directions. No citations are provided or those that are provided are all improperly formatted. Almost all of the required sections of the paper are missing.	No attempt to follow format guidelines.
Grammar/ Usage	Nearly perfect grammar and usage.	A few mistakes in grammar and usage, but these mistakes generally do not detract from the ease of reading the paper.	There are repeated mistakes in grammar and usage which detract from the ideas in the paper, and make it more difficult to follow.	Grammar and usage are so poor, it is difficult to understand large parts of the paper.	Grammar and usage are so poor it is difficult to understand any of the paper.
Organization	The paper is clear and easy to follow. The introduction sets the tone for the paper, and includes a clear argument. Each body paragraph has a clear focus with strong topic sentences to let the reader know the major point of each paragraph.	The paper is mostly clear and easy to follow, but there are a few hiccups in organization or flow. The paper does attempt to set signposts for the reader with topic sentences to let the reader know the major point of each paragraph, though some sections may be a little hard to follow or seem out of place.	The paper is difficult to follow at times which detracts from the ideas the paper is presenting. There are some attempts, to set sign posts for the reader with topic sentences, but for the most part the point of each paragraph is not entirely clear.	The paper as a whole is difficult to follow, which obscures most of the ideas the author is trying to convey. Topic sentences are very unclear or non-existent.	The paper is so poorly organized that none of it can be understood. There are no attempts at topic sentences.
Historical Context	Explains the historical context of the primary source expertly, drawing from class readings as well as lectures. The paper focuses on the most relevant details in their historical context to help the reader understand the source, rather than listing all the history verbatim.	Knows the historical context well, and chooses aspects of the historical context that will help the reader understand the source. Uses background from lecture or other sources read in the class to enhance the reader’s understanding. The paper may tend to list events verbatim rather than focusing on the most important details or miss some significant context.	Attempts to give some historical context, but misses significant details or has significant factual inaccuracies. Attempts to include points from lecture or other sources, though this may not adequately explain the source’s context or help the reader understand the source more clearly.	Very little historical context for the source, and what is there is hard to follow or factually inaccurate.	No historical context provided.
Source Analysis	Thoroughly analyzes the source. Does not only summarize the source, but demonstrates significant connections between the source and the historical context. Demonstrates original, clear and creative thinking about why this source is important for understanding the history of cities in this period. The analysis shows attention to detail, and considerable thought about the potential bias of the source.	Summarizes the source well, and is able to make connections between the source and course materials. Provides a reason why this source helps illuminate the history of cities in this period. Does address the potential bias in the source, though this may not be very clear. The discussion of the source may tend toward summarizing more than analyzing the deeper meaning.	Attempts an analysis of the source, but misinterprets it or simply summarizes it without making clear connections to the historical context. Attempts to explain potential bias in the source, but it is unclear. Does not provide a clear reason why this source is important for understanding the history of cities in this period.	The student has not shown a sufficient understanding of the source and misinterprets it or is unable even to summarize it. There is little explanation of why the source might be important for understanding the history of cities in this period.	No evidence the student has read the source. The student has not attempted to explain potential bias in the source or why the source is important for understanding the history of cities in this period.