tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 31, 2014 7:00am-8:01am EST
expert driven in this period. this is in early 20th century home economics class. home economics will be taught in schools as a subject. still is. did any of you take home economics? the roots are in this period. it's a really interesting kol lonization of an area thought to be something individual private households do that were passed on in a rule of thumb way from mothers to daughters. think of the beacher sisters who were part of this in a way, too, talking about household management. home economics as a field of profession -- a professional domain where there are experts creating curriculum is a turn of the century kind of invention. here again is -- that is not christine frederick but that is someone who looks like christine frederick. the start in the late 19th
century but take on an expert-driven advice. the new housekeeping efficiency study in home management. household engineer and professional consultant. one question we might pose here, i think it's clear how much frederick is indebted to spun like taylor. right? but how much has changed in the envisioning of the household from the time of the beacher sisters in the 1860s to this moment? what's changed and what's remained the same? nothing is every totally a break with the past, we might say. what strikes about you this? >> she has taken this idea of the scientific method and applied it to make it as efficient as possible and saving time in everything way and everything is planned out. at the end i was interested when she threw out this is why this is so important and women are leaving -- becoming mothers to
join the work force and that's slil because housekeeping is so important. that reminded me of the beacher sisters. it was her taking the new methods but keeping the ideal of household keeping intact. >> yes very nice. the end result is the same. the rational for why you do it maybe is changing. good. >> i was struck by the contrast between the beacher sisters but so much emphasis on raising children and morals and family and those kinds of things and christine frederick is all about inches in the sink and how to cook food quickly. it's very focused on these duties of the household. but she doesn't talk about raising her children. when she mentioned them it's like, how to keep her children from getting in the way of her chores. >> right. >> it seemed like they were almost keeping her from cooking and doing that stuff. >> yes. right. interfering with her
well-planned day. she refers to them as the boy and the baby. they are these stock characters. she's able to have the baby play while she's doing her hand stitching and so forth. she refers to them as -- very unidealized. >> in a way i was impressed by the way she mapped out her schedule and included the children. so that she specifically had an hour or two every day to just sit and play with them. or watch them play and play with them while she did something else. she did incorporate them into her schedule which i find impressive and did remind me of the beacher sisters. it was almost like trying to show them an example from an early age of systematic living. >> it makes you realize, this is a long development. thinking very consciously reflectively about how the household runs. it doesn't run on its own. there might be ways to improve it. the beacher sisters had a more
spiritual notion of it than christine frederick. you could see them talking to each other across time. >> this piece screamed litman to me. this is the drudgery of housework and wanting to make it worthwhile i guess. i could see that it would get boring after a while. so you want to apply the science to make it feel like you are doing something -- i'm not saying housework is not an important thing to be doing. but i could see it being a very unfulfilling thing to women so they want to apply a scientific process. >> she uses the word something about drudgery in here. so she's admitting in a way that the beacher sisters would not have. some of this work is just tedious work. right? so why not put all this energy into speeding it up, cutting out steps? if the dishes can be in the drain board and wash them with hot water, they will air dry. you don't need to wipe them down
with a cloth of questionable clenlyness. right there, the ways to systematize and a kind of pleasure for its own sake. but because it gets you more time to do other things. notice in her schedule there's a -- every other week club date. she's has these social and more leisure activities built into the skeng as well. think about this in terms of this emerging consumer and leisure culture that we have talked about in terms of sister carrie. >> i think like the beacher sisters -- she makes it clear that this household sphere is for women only. all of these tasks and schedules are all about the woman and the mother. in that way it's similar to the beacher sisters. in that last paragraph, she says basically the right place for
the woman is in the home and that's all. but on the flip side by analysis and calling for standardization and conservation of energy, all this stuff, she kind of equates the woman's sphere of the household as a similar task and job of importance as things done outside the home. >> yes. right. the beacher sisters state that, that women's role takes as much management skill as a world leader. but actually frederick just doing it. notice what she borrows from the factory. she talks about, well, men in the factory do this. i'm also using this index card system on my wall. i borrow this from my husband. there's this kind of parallelism that she's sketching, which may be enough to keep women in the home to feel that their work is
as professional as scientific as requiring of scientific attention and care. >> i think an interesting but maybe more subtle contrast is how they deal with house keepers or mothers of different classes. in beacher the focus was if you are of greater means you should be more philanthropic and set up homes for children and use your money in terms of flil an throw pi. in terms of frederick, she uses this efficient as an equalizer. on page 41 she says, a strong reason why the tools is not as possible as more efficient working methods is that while some women can afford a vacuum or electric motor or other tool, hundreds of thousands of women cannot. any one of those thousands of women can reduce the drunlry of their work by better planning more intelligent systemizing and observation with their work and
how they do it. whereas beacher was how to spend your extra money. this is how you can appear as though you have the same amount of money or the same amount of housekeeping by standardization. >> how you can gain some of the rewards of science no mat other what your class. i think that's right. it's a very taylor he is being argument. by cutting out the waste cutting dredgery. yet getting to a final and maybe higher quality product. even if that means the product are schedule babies or -- i love this line. sunday dinner on saturday. it saves time. sort of these instances where you feel you are almost reaching absurdity in the scheduling of something, which at the time had not been thought of in these an littic, cold terms of what works better. that wasn't what a household was about. it wasn't just about work and technical efficiency.
>> i thought it was interesting that she singles out herself as a suburban housewife. i feel like we talked about a woman in the city but this is what suburban life is like. it's a big contrast in her schedule versus anything that they would have encountered because of location and the development of suburbs as these -- she talks about how anyone that lives in the suburbs knows that you can have anyone drop in on you and the social aspects of it. >> yes. right. good. and you know, with a text like this you do want to be alert to those social clues. she says things like of course i could use the telephone or i could call the driver. you get a sense of her social class. but also of these infrastructure around her of what's making this household run. we learn even though she's perfected this lawn dering system that someone else comes in to do the laundry. this say household not simply the realm of the individual
woman. it's a system if you want to think about it that way. akin to a factory system. benefits from the same kinds of tools. i want to point to this specific place. it's on page 100. it's the last page of this excerpt. we do get the sense what is motivating frederick beyond the beauty of science. a couple of you referred to it. let's look at that. the same women -- the women who say, i don't want to run my home like an office or factory. i want it to be a home. this kind of disnance between home as factory. but the same women and hosts of others are talking about home drudgery. if they have been doing all these home as it kz all these centuries in a beautiful and poetic way why is it that women are fleeing from housework into professions and outside work? why are they living in koop dif apartments eating deli meals and refusing to assume the burdens
of motherhood? that's maybe the vision of urban woman, of sister carrie. refusing. you hear teddy roosevelt, not taking up the mantle of motherhood and her duties. what we see that has moved here from the time of the beacher sisters is both the need for a persuasive case and the sense that the rewards of family itself or the spirit are not enough to keep women in the home. they have to be persuaded. this is a complex task. it's a scientific task. it's one very equal of the manager in the factory. like taylor, you sense christine frederick making an overt case for a break from old ways of doing things. right? a break from the past, break from tradition. again, think about litman the only loyalty is going -- should be to going forward. right? this all marks them as really
modernest thinkers. they are after the new the novel, the better way to do things that have been done from as they put it time in memorial. enter -- let me show you quickly -- these are a couple of the illustrations that actually appeared in frederick's book of the well ordered kitchen. this one i just -- it makes me think i need to go into my own kitchen and resign everything. right? the drying tray on the right or left? is my sink the right height? you see the path ways. think of time motion studies. this is the badly grouped kitchen equipment so you walk -- this very messy, ugly zigzag to do what you want to do from the serving table to the kitchen cabinet to the stove. here is the efficient grouping. the preparing route is a. the clearing away route is b. right? you get this nice clean motion of how work is supposed to be done.
let's talk about maybe an even more radical systematizer and simplifier, john b. watson. john b. watson was actually -- began his education, his graduate education in philosophy with none other than john dewey. another link to our thinkers in the course. he becomes almost invents the field of behaviorist psychology. he begins with animals and looking at how animals were conditioned by stimulus response and moves on to people. of course, infants as we see here. he will teach at johns hopkins for a time. that of course, modern emblem of the modern university but will be forced out due to his divorce, which was brought on by an affair with his co-author here, one of his students. so not everything has changed. right?
he could lose his university position for his divorce. and his affair. he will become a popular expert as well as a scientific expert on child rearing. eventually, also advertising. we might think about the links between something like stimulus response and these experiments with children and the field of advertising. what is going to get a consumer to respond? this is watson. this is psychological care of infant and child, a new psychology maybe for a new century. he is writing later. this isi+r today. he is a simplifier. freud had a kind of darwinian battle within the person, within the mind between -- and the urges of the mind between the conscious and sub conscious. a mind that was always at war with itself.
watson will have a very different view and a different view from his mentor dewey who thought of consciousness in complex ways. watson sees nothing in the mind. all we have to go on is how people behave and what they do and that is the appropriate domain of psychological insight and action. he called freud ismism voodooism and will be the leader of this school called behaviorism, to watch and study behavior. stimulus response with rats or children is the way that you build behavior. you use rewards and punishments. and you can thereby build in instricts in children and habits. you can internalalize things like a schedule. think abouttzz christine frederick and her schedule baby. if you feed them at the sat time every day, that's when they get
hungry. put them down to bed the same time every day, they go to sleep at that time. this works. i can tell you. some of that advice is very popular at the time. even though you can sense the radicalism and shock of writing like this. if we make the argument that all cultures invent psychologies, why this psychology now? what is it about watson's vision of child rearing that is of this time? just a few photographs. this is an experiment. the photos are grainy, which i apologize. they're the only ones we have. this is watson actually doing an experiment on the strength and grip of an infant. he has a bar there and the infant is holding on. some of the still shots that appear in his book before conditioning the child with a
white rat. these were the little albert experiments. he did a host of experiments with this one particular child and filmed them. here you see albert before and after reaction, once he has been sensitized to the furry creature. you were going to say something? >> applying the scientific method to child rearing just like they would apply it to the factory or frederick was applying it to housework, he is applying it to how you raise a child and how people become scared of things or certain things like that. >> yeah. there's kind of a blank slate here he is working with. matthew? >> the thing that struck me about is how overtly hostile they seem to be about mothers in general. along with -- on page 12, a long with this conviction comes search for facts which helps
them. it reveelzals almost a bankruptcy of facts. no one knows enough to raise a child. we talked about people trying to break tradition. he was really trying to assault it. >> severe and more hostile to tradition than any of our other writers. nobody has facts. nobody knows how to be a proper parent. the world we be better off if we would stop having children for 20 years, except for those reared for experimental purposes. and then start again with the facts. >> i think what i found interesting was going along with this idea we have a field with a blank slate where we can start over is that through the other readings and through the readings for this section, we learned that with this industrialization, it is seen as i guess there's this under arch arching in the back of everyone's mind of can we have
this perfect society? can we -- >>what struck me was he says -- how the work shows that all of the fears are acquired. it kind of gave me the idea of how at this time we're wondering, can we erase fear can we live in a perfect society? by looking at these babies, can we find the way to raise the perfect human? >> yes. right. it's utopian kind of thinking. if you simply get children early enough and you have all this laboratory data gathered that we wipe out fear. we wipe out certain kinds of things that we thought were deep instricts or particular to particular people. this is go -- envisioning human nature as a blank slate leads you. >> a personal peeve. he talks about parents but he only talks about the mother.
nowhere in this does he mention a father. he keeps using parents and parenthood. i was waiting for, where is the dad? >> yeah. it's an interesting -- that might capture something about what's new and what's old. right? right in that word right there, the invoe indication of parent to mean mother. in his experience in the 1920s, who was doing the parenting? it was the mother almost in every instance. yet he uses this more almost objective scientific term parenthood to talk about what he means. this kind of newness coexisting with a kind of habit and tradition to think of the parent as the mother. >> going back to matthew's comment, i thought it was interesting how much he disdains the human instinct in favor of the scientific method especially the female human instinct. on 15 when he is talking about when the woman realizes that she's responsible for raising
her child, he is basically -- she would rather load this burden anywhere else upon heredity, upon the divine shoulder. he is just saying that the mother doesn't want instinctively to take on this burden and teach her child how to be the perfect child or whatever. but then she finally comes to accept it eventually. >> yeah. think back. this brings us neatly in some ways back to litman. the friendly comfortable feeling of believing that you are bigger than you are more important than you are in the scheme of things. this is the critique of religion. this comfort of her redty for not taking responsibility for your own active role in the world. that fits wattson, because the kind of action -- simple enough, that creates something as deep as fear is the pairing of furry rabbit with a hammering sound. which he says is one of the only
things that actually instinctively, everybody recoils from. if you pair those you create the fear of the animal and then you create a life long deep fear of anything furry. even santa claus, he says. >> it's interesting that not just in this piece but all the ones we read even though they seem progressive, they seem to still be staked in social tradition. this might be a little bit of a stretch, but in this piece we kind of came out of the '20s and we're in them and there's this huge desire, people were liv8[k for what they wanted. he talks about if you give too much affection to your child, they will be spoiled. that might be why this was clung on to tightly because people saw what happened with this generation of kids that lived through the '20s and were -- wanted material. so they want to get away with that. same with frederick how it might be a progressive way of looking at it but it's keeping the woman in the home.
it's not very socially progressive still. >> using these progressive techniques to keep things maybe closer to where they were. that's an interesting tension. i think it does run through these pieces, even maybe in watson who seems the most as you mentioned hostile to inherited assumptions and traditions. >> i found it interesting thinking about the audience of all these pieces. with frederick, it's like who -- she assumes everyone who is reading has a house or with watson, he assumes that these children will be born into good families who will use the best methods to raise their kids. on page 31 he is talking about the experiment on the child who had been at home. he says, here is a beautiful 2 1/2 child nurtured in one of our best american homes. it kind of struck me as almost idealistic in that we're putting this effort into the perfect society and systemizing everything but there are still these people in the background
who have no access to this or no way of achieving it. >> yeah. right? also, there are still accidents. unless you train all the dogs not to bark at babies. some of this is going to allude the control of the system advertising in the end. i think we -- there's more to say about watson. i think we see the links between the thinkers the tensions coming to the front in their pieces will come back to some of the tensions we didn't talk about overtly but that might be imbedded in litman's term about science being the discipline of democracy. if experts are the answer and expert run society, what happens to democracy? to the people who are not the experts, those in the factories or the readers of christine frederick or the infants raised in laboratories? is this the vision of democracy
that the united states was poised to adopt? we will come back to some of the critics of -- the technique rather than the substance. i just want us as we close to think about all of these readings what they do what all these readings do to victorian ideas about individualism, about human nature, character, labor and the dignity of labor separate spheres, men and women roles and natural -- seemingly natural handed down ideas, whether rule of thumb or otherwise. this break from tradition is incomplete as we have noticed. but it certainly seems like something new on the horizon. we will pick up with new ideas about race and racial identity on thursday's class. okay. thank you for a great discussion.
i have papers for a couple people up here. >> you have been watching a special presentation of our lectures in history series. we have more every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern. join students in the classroom to hear lectures on campuses across the country on topics ranging from the american revolution to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight eastern here on american history tv. we want to tell you about some of our other programs. saturday at 4:00 a look at the history bookshelf. tune in as the country's best known american history writers of the past decade talk about their books. that's history bookshelf every saturday at 4:00 p.m. eastern here on american history tv on c-span c-span3.
new year's day on the c-span networks, here are some of our featured programs. 10:00 a.m. eastern, the washington ideas forum. energy conservation with david crane, warren brown and dean kamen. at 4:00, the brooklyn historical&ú society holds a conversation on race. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, from the explorer's club walt cunningham on the first manned space flight. new year's day on c-span2 just before noon eastern heck tore tobar on the men buried in a mine and at 3:00 p.m. eastern, richard norton smith on the life of nelson rockefeller. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, sharyl
attkisson on her reporting on the obama administration. new year's day, 10:00 a.m., juanita abernathy at 4:00, professor benjamin carp and then at 8:00 p.m., a cartoonist draws ten presidential character coutures as david mccullough discusses the presidents and some of their most memorable qualities. new year's day on the c-span networks. for our complete schedule, go to c-span.org. american history tv traveled to the library of congress in washington, d.c., which was established in the year 2000 and endowed by john w.kl klugy.l2d
up next we speak with one of the 2014 fellows. >> joining us is joseph polowa, a professor at george mason university. this is your first day at the library of congress. what brings you here? >> i am a fellow this academic year. i'm working on a research project that i'm calling the indians capital city, which is a study of the visual, symbolic and lived native experiences in washington, d.c. or another way of thinking of it is indigenous history of the city. i'm interested in looking at the ways in which native people across the 19th and early 20th centuries claimed and reclaimed spaces within the city. >> can you explain what you mean by those terms, clachled and reclaimed? >> yeah. well, so there's obviously a
deep and rich indigenous history in the chesapeake and potomac region. so the federal city today sits on native homelands. so when i'm thinking about reclaiming obviously i'm thinking about reclaiming homeland territory essentially. however, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries as washington became the federal city native diplomats, delegates from communities across the country as well as residents, native people who came here to live maybe to work as lobbyists even, claimed spaces within the city as their own and marked them as indigenous in a number of different ways. i think this is especially important because it does a couple of different things. in terms of thinking about urban history, it complicates our story. i have thought for a long time that the ways in which we
concept you'llize native history and urban history are separate. native history is taking place and it's going on and then at some point it stops and then there's a gap and then urban history starts. there's no sort of meeting paint between the two. in reality i think we understand that that's not really accurate. but that's kind of what our popular culture, even our academic studies has suggested. in washington in particular i think this is a really important story or set of stories because native people had a significant role in shaping the city. it's important to remember that washington was a local place before it was a national capital. it had to learn how to become national, how to think of itself as a national city. it also became global at some point, too. native people and a native presence helped shape that
process as well that process of becoming. >> what part of the 19th century are we talking about when we talk about native american influence in washington? >> if we think about the actual native population in the city, there were ebbs and flows. at particular moments in the time period surrounding the removal policies of the 1830s when large numbers of chair key and other southeastern tribal nations were coming to the city, there were very large numbers of native people here. in the 1850s and 1870s, these were time periods when there were large numbers of native people in the city. in terms of my work though, i want to span the entire 19th century from the beginnings of the city as the federal city and even come up into and through the 20th century. one of the things i'm going to do here at the library is thinking about how to book end the project.
there's a wealth of great material, but finding a way to present it in a coherent fashion with a logical beginning and ending points is going to be something that i need to grapple with a little bit. >> how did the presence of native americans change washington? are there remnants of their presence today? >> yeah. so that's a really good question. and one of the things that i want to focus on in particular in this project is the -- sort of the tension between the commemorative and symbolic representations of native people and the lived experiences of native people in the city. so if we want to think about representations, the stories are written all over the walls in the capitol building, the rotunda features relieves over each door representing moments
of indinl nous history. there are historic paintings in the rotunda as well. in the architecture on the outside of the building, there's representations. there are representations of native people there. in other federal buildings across the city but also in other parts of the city as well. i'm really interested in a bridge that i hope we can talk about called the q street bridge or buffalo bridge that has 56 indian head busts adorning each side of the bridge as well as four buffalo along the top. so the visual representations and the symbolic representations are all over the place. throughout the 19th century there were dozens and sometimes hundreds of native delegates, residents and visitors in the
city at any given moment. what's interesting is the tension between the stories being told on the wall, which is one of a conquest that was nearly completed, a con occurring of the west manifest destiny, vanishing indian very prominent 19th century idea that native people would cease to exist as a distinct ethnic group withinsjzd"u$e national fabric this is the story that's on the walls. but non-native washington tonians are running into native people all around the city in the halls of federal buildings, in taverns theaters, even in the cemeteries. there were 24 at least native delegate s delegates who died here and are buried in the congressional cemetery. >> what kind of influence did the native american delegates have?
who were they? how were they here? how did they interact with official washington? >> the delegates really sort of -- okay. there were very well-known diplomats. people like red cloud, red jacket kicking bear, these were -- john ross peter pitchland who was a leader who actually wrote once that he felt more at home in washington, d.c. than anywhere else and ended up living here for a significant part of his life. eli parker who became the commissioner of the office of indian affairs lived in the city but had been coming for a decade or more prior to that. sometimes the delegations were big. so it wouldn't be just red cloud but it would be red cloud and several other men and women who would make the trip. often times or most often the
trips were at the request of the office of indian affairs. indian agents in the field might write and suggest that a delegation would help to facilitate a treaty or an agreement. other times the visits were designed to intimidate, to bring native people from the west into the city to impress upon them the wealth and the might of the united states. the visits around the city, the tours that they would take always included visits to it the armory and to the navy yard and demonstration of cannons and things like that. the visits also included meetings with legislators, senators, congressmen. usually at least one or two ceremonial visits to the white house. so the work of the delegations centered around diplomacy.
but washington+ñ(q(psq more than that for native people. there were also sort of quote unquote unofficial delegations, native leaders and others woman to the city of their own accord seeking an audience with legislators or the office of indian affairs to visit the city almost as a tourist destination. so it came to me when i call it the indians capital city, it came to me in a lot of different things. >> do the delegates, are they claiming space in washington just by their presence? >> the presence is important. in terms of rethinking the historical literature on the city itself, that's kind of -- this is the salvage part of the project, reclaiming that history of a native presence. i have suggested in some of the early work that have i done that this was a normative experience
for many native leaders. some of the writing that exists on a native presence in washington sort of focuses on how it may have been an alien place. it may have seemed overwhelming to native visitors. that would have been true of any rural visitor in 19th century washington -- or 19th century united states coming for the first time in washington. it would have seemed overwhelming. so the presence itself is important. but there are all these amazing stories about how native people actively claimed space. there was, for example, a portrait artist, charles bird king, who painted portraits in the early 19th century. charles bird king painted these
amazing pare inging portraits. thomas mckinny used federal funds to purchase them and adorn them on the walls of the office of indian affairs. guidebooks in the 19th century, tourist guidebooks for the city noted that the office of indian affairs was a very important destination for tourists because they could see these paintings and perhaps this was one of the most interesting spaces in the city. what i find most interesting about the gallery is that as native delegates became aware of it, as word spread about the portraits, more and more native people requested to be added to it. there's a story about an 1828 win abay go, a ho chunk group who went to visit the portrait
gallery. they were looking for members of their community who visited the city before and became very desirous to have their own portraits made. the federal government at various times didn't want to spend time on the portraits. this was one of those moments. there's correspondence between the commissioner of indian affairs and the secretary of war about whether they could find money to do this because the men and women wanted their portraits made. it meant something to them to be added. they offered to sell some of the things that they brought with them to washington to raise their own money or if they couldn't do that, they wanted to add those things their clothing, their weapons and ceremonial items so there was something representing them on the wall. i have thought about what this must have meant to these men and women when they went back to -- when they went back west they talked about how ultimately they were able to have their
portraits made and how their images were on the wall in the office of indian affairs. so it meant something. so seeing the portraits meant something. it was a way to connect across time with members of one's community who had visit the city before and had similar experiences. a sense of connection across time there. to me, i look at that as a way to mark that wall. the native men and women were portrayed with prestige, feathers, peace medals, ribbons and things that denoted their position in their communities. that was important. but more importantly i think it was a way to mark the wall. in the chapter i'm writing about this, i'm referring to it as indigenous tagging. graffiti, red jacket having his portrait on the wall is the same thing as scrawling red jacket was here 1828.
the interesting juxtaposition is if we fast forward 150 years toed american indian movement and the occupation of the bureau of indian affairs in the 1970s, one of the most dramatic things they did during the occupation, besides destroying documents or reclaiming documents was the spray paint graffiti all over the walls of the office. sending messages -- claiming those walls claiming that space within the office of indian affairs as an indigenous space. i think that's an interesting connection across time. >> the buffalo bridge you mentioned, was that another example of claiming space? >> the buffalo bridge to me is an example of how washington, d.c. is itself the city is a multi-layered urban archive of indigenous history. so there's this bridge that exists that connects q street in georgetown with q street kind of
bordering dupont circle. georgetown exiftsted prior to washington. i think 1751 is when tifs founded. decades before washington or the district of columbia. but as the two cities sort of developed over a period of decades and into the 19th century, this sprawl brought them closer andp2=ñ closer. there was a proposal to connect the two. rock creek separates them. so they would have to build a bridge. q street was the location selected for the bridge. there were a couple of issues. q stree\d÷x in washington and q street in georgetown are about 185 feet apart. so the bridge -- north/south. the bridge would have to be curved. and secondly, q street ended in
the historic dumbarton mansion which had to be moved 100 feet to build the bridge. there's question about whether there should be a bridge. why not fill it in in rocks and other stuff? which was a bad idea. ultimately, they didn't do it. they got an architect named glen brown at the turn of the 20th century to design this bridge. and he used trendy design elements of the time. this was the time of the city beautiful movement. the bridge rather than being a simple ooh till tearian structure, it's this grand bridge with these neoclassical arches. so it's very much part of the city beautiful movement. the city beautiful movement was popularized during the world's fair of 1893 in chicago. the other main sort of aesthetic of the world's fair was a
romantic of the american frontier. this was the closing of the frontier. the 1890 center declared the frontier closed. it was romantization of the american frontier. glen brown wanted bridge not only to look like part of the city beautiful aesthetic but also to have some no, sir tal gentleman about a bygone american past. so they put four gigantic buffalo along the top of the bridge and then decided to carve into each side of the bridge 28 indian busts. they used what they thought was a generic indian head. so if you run or drive underneath the bridge today, you will see these heads jutting out with kind of a prominent features and a headdress. it's the same replicated 28 times on each side of the bridge. so this is really interesting to
think about at the turn of the 20th century that these are the ideas that the bridge aarty connect is using as he is imagining this bridge in washington. but it gets more interesting. if we think about what those images were. the bust that he modelled the indian head carvings on was a life mask of a real man, a man named kicking bear who was a leader who helped to bring the ghost dance to the plains which led to wounded knee. so not only was this a native man, but this was a native man who fought the united states militarily and spiritually on the plains. in the 1890s he came to washington to meet with officials in the office of indian affairs. sew so he fought the united states diplomatically in the city. we have this bridge with these architecture ral design elements. it seems like they are free
floating images of no, sir talnostalgia. they actually commemorate the anti-colonial leader who fought the united states militarily, spir callie and diplomatically. here's where it gets more interesting to me. in the 1890s there was an archaeologist names w.h. holmes working in the city. he became one of the directors of the national museum or smith sewn i don't know. he dug up connecticut avenue. another time he led a really significant excavation of the dunnbarton heights north of where the bridge was built. what he found was dunnbarton heights was a significant stone quarry site for chesapeake and potomac people. they harvested and made stone tools in the space. so this bridge using early 20th century architectural technology and trendy design elements,
that's actually supposed to be commemorating a nostalgia for a bygone american past but actually commemorates an anti-colonial leader who fought the united states. it's built over top of a site significant to native people in the region for eons. when i think about this project the concepts of ancient and modern vanishing and ever present are all right there. this is our first day as a fellow. so i'm really excited about the opportunity. it's a great place to work. in particular i'm interested in the papers of oh individual statesmen that are in the manuscript division.
people like john hay george stuart and others. as well as some presidents. these men wrote about their interactions with the native people in the city. so there will be good material there. another body of sources that exists here that i think is crucial to this project is the collection of tourist guide books and customs manuals from the 19th and early 20th century. my preliminary search for these turned up over 140 in the library. now obviously some of these are reprints. there is a lot here. these tourist guide books were in the 19th century for people coming to visit washington. essentially there is, you know, a short section on all of the different federal buildings, some of the different neighborhoods and things like that. they also contain amazing anecdotes, stories about there
was a hotel called the union hotel on the 13th on pennsylvania that was known across the city as indian headquarters because they catered primarily to native delegations. so those guide books are a useful source. beyond that the customs manuals were written by white women -- elite white women in the 19th century. this is one of the things i wasn't expecting to find when i started to look at more of them.
it wasn't like new york. or even new orleans. where there is old money and established social circles. there is a lot of flux. so the women the wives of the statesmen wouldn't have a long time to get adjusted. so this is a textbook. again reading through these the women were writing about native men around the city.bx-
they were writing about men's naked bodies, muscles and thrilling voices. elite white women in the 19th century were sort of considered the paragon of white virtue and their sexuality was closely policeded. so i was shocked to see them writing about nonwhite men in this sort of rottic fantasies. i have been thinking why that might be. i don't have firm conclusions. washington was a liminal space. i doubt the women could have freely written about native men in this way in the west. in the 19th century. it would have been more threatening. because there was a perception
even at the time that there wasn't a huge native presence in the city or that any native presence in the city was a transient temporary presence allowed this to be more okay. it was less an affront to racial order. more excited to look at those and find more examples of oh those stories. >> when your work here is concluded what do you hope to do with the findings? >> this is a book project. i published my first book with the university of north carolina press. i'm hoping to work with the press again on this bookment there is an amazing visual element to the project as well. also a part of the project that's about movement a movement of people. so in addition to the standard monograph which will focus on
washington, d.c. and not only will the native people be the main characters. but the city itself will be a main character. this is a place study. it's about a place. but that movement the journey is also an important part of the story. really allows me to think about a digital humanities project. a mapping project where these journeys can be animated and represented digitally. so often times the delegates would leave their home communities in the west and visit several cities along the way. so they might come to st. louis. that would be their point of departure. then they would go from there to cincinnati. from cincinnati to pittsburgh or from there to new york or boston. then baltimore and washington, d.c. all along the way.
there were different experiences. i want to represent the movement. we think of uh native people in the 19th century as being static. this is a dynamic story. pairing a digital humanities project with the traditional historical monograph. >> thank you for joining us on american history tv. >> thank you. >> with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span 2, on c-span3 we complement the coverage with
the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. on c-span3, it's home to american history tv with programs that tell our nation's storye] series, the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about the past. history bookshelf with the best known american history writers. the presidency looking at policies and legacies of the nation's commanders in chief. lectures in history with top college professors delving into america's past and the new series reel america featuring films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span3 created by the cable tv