(last edited June 16th)
I became enamored with Ida B. Wells-Barnett during Winter semester 2011, when we read a small selection of Wells's "Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in all its Phases." The selection focused on the editorial that Ida wrote in Free Speech that would so enrage White citizens of Memphis that her office was destroyed and she was threatened with lynching if she ever returned.
Ida's writing stood out among everything else I had read because she was so honest and blunt. It was easy to envision her work as a sword slicing through the white supremacist propaganda of the time. I was especially taken by the fact that this was written by a woman. Prior to Ida, we had been reading slave narratives, and the female slave narrative by Harriett Jacobs was a very carefully constructed piece that spoke of feminine virtues and respected the concept of True Womanhood. In everything I read, I did not remember Jacobs's autobiographical narrator ever use the word "rape" and because she didn't I found that a lot of my classmates never used that word either. What her narrator went through was called harassment, or it was said that the master in the story was trying to get her to sleep with him, but it was never called rape, attempted rape, or anything of the sort. But to me, that is what it obviously would have been. The narrator did not have a choice, merely the illusion. And, while Frederick Douglass's narrative was much harsher, it was still clearly and masterfully tailored towards appealing to White audiences. All of this makes sense of course, but it is also what made Wells's writing stand out as an unapologetic argument for the truth.
When my class was discussing Wells-Barnett we were also discussing Booker T. Washington and his speech arguing for accommodation and industrial education. I was very curious about what Washington had read that might have inspired him to be a leader within his community. My theory was that in order to become a leader, one must have someone to form their identity around, a positive influence, or a role model, and anyone who read Frederick Douglass and the many other amazing authors of the time could find that in literature. One of the many concerns I had with Washington's strategy was my theory that without liberal arts education, industrial education may not produce the leaders needed if White America ever decided to grant African Americans rights. Prior to slave narratives stories were still told using the oral tradition in slavery, but they were subversive stories, so how could they be passed on and sustain accommodation? Would they be passed on?
So, when I started ruling out topics for this paper I remembered Wells-Barnett's writing, my desire to learn about her, and my theory on literature and leaders. My thesis was more of a hypothesis than something I knew to be a fact.
Initially, I searched databases and read articles on the internet, but most of them stated the same information and lacked much detail about Ida's work. A few of her pamphlets have been released online through Project Gutenberg, and they revealed not only the truth about the injustices she exposed, but also a press that was deliberately complicit in inciting lynch mobs. I was fascinated with the role the press played in this, but I struggled to find sources that could provide clear examples. I attempted to purchase an article online that seemed to be what I needed, but the website had technical problems and I couldn't buy the article, which was not available anywhere else I looked. Luckily, I found A Dangerous Stir, which offered some of the information I was looking for.
When digging for more information on Wells I found that many of her biography are shorter books written for young adults. I was thrilled when I found Paula J. Giddings biography, but overwhelmed at the task of reading, and taking notes on, more than seven hundred pages. Fortunately, Paula's work also pointed the way to other sources. While I can't directly quote most newspapers from the 1800's, the New York Times archive allowed me to search for articles about my subject, and it was useful in piecing together the mixed, but often brutal, press coverage she received.
But it was even more difficult to eliminate the aspects of her life that are rarely if ever mentioned in brief articles. For instance, her feuds with White suffragists and the role White suffragists played in using the threat of Black men in order to gain the vote is something that I don't think should ever be forgotten. Also fascinating was Booker T. Washington's moves to suppress Ida's critical voice by buying up the newspapers and turning others against her. And, although Ida is now credited as one of the founding members of NAACP (which was predominately White) she was originally excluded from that list. In fact, despite all the kind words and all the praise she received during her life -- even from her friend Frederick Douglass -- Ida was snubbed and excluded from many major records during her life. But I realize that this information belongs in a different paper.
Every source I read was fascinating, but it was very difficult in constructing a paper that stuck to the thesis because there was so much fascinating information out there about Ida B. Wells-Barnett. I knew that much of what was in her diary wouldn't be of any use, that it was irrelevant that she had suitors, or that she was the victim of false gossip just because she was an independent single woman, or that she apologized in her diary for spending too much on purses and clothes, and while I found her anger and attempts to control it fascinating, I knew it wasn't going to be a part of my final paper.
Another difficulty I had was in not including the many brutal details of the lynchings, and the details of Whites who obstructed democracy and violently took over the entire towns. These were stories of racism, certainly, but also of treason, and I feel that many people do not know anything about them. So, for me it was very difficult to not include them all in my paper because I think the realities must be understood before people can understand how important the work Ida was performing.
Also, I normally consider my ability to not become emotionally attached to my writing to be a strength when it comes to revision, but in this case I am attached to Ida. The idea of letting her down made the pressure of revising and editing much more difficult than I am used to.
While I tried to take notes on everything that I thought was important, I did not use most of them. My original draft was a mostly chronological account of her life, and it went off in directions that made it more like an autobiography than a paper with a specific thesis. After posting my workshop draft I knew I had a lot more to add to the paper, and so I continued to do so. My strategy was to first plump up some of the paragraphs in order to draw clearer parallels between her writing and my thesis. Secondly, I continued to write chronologically, ending shortly before Ida's death.
For my second partial draft I looked over the paper and began eliminating anything outside of the lead that didn't support my thesis. I needed to maintain some semblance of time and order in the telling of her story, but I also looked for things that could be combined into one area, despite them occurring in different time periods. I believe I successfully found the distance I needed for the revision process by repeating to myself, "this is only a paper for school, this only a paper for school," rather than believing that I had to convince anyone of the brutality and hypocrisy of Reconstruction that many seem to forget.
One change I made to my second introduction was to add something about Ida's writing to the second paragraph in order to draw the focus away from her "life" back to her writing, although it is difficult to not see them as synonymous because even when she was married and breastfeeding she still worked. She brought her breastfeeding infants with her on tour, and in one case she investigated a lynching with her entire family.
But, as I began to review my second draft, I realized that I would be better off gutting the lead and much of what I had written. While I found my original lead interesting, it just didn't stay within the narrow boundaries that I needed it to. I rewrote the essay trying to put more emphasis on Ida's writing and what it meant in the culture she existed in. I tried to focus more on her own motivations for writing, her analysis of culture, and the work she put into perfecting her style. Also, I included more quotations from Wells, as well as expert quotes about her literature. I felt like that helped with the ethos of my essay.
After writing the final draft I searched the MLA websites, trying to ensure I did everything correctly. However, I was confused as to whether or not I should always put the author's name in with the page number because one sample paper showed a student using only a page number, even when the author's name wasn't mentioned in the sentence.
Unfortunately, I did not learn much from the workshop process because my peers didn't participate. But it was helpful to receive comments from my professor. When I reviewed my own paper I think I strayed from the peer response guidelines, but I was not afraid of hurting my own feelings. Also, what I learned from this is that I must maintain my ability to compartmentalize my feelings and my writing. I can't become emotionally attached to writing or else it slows down the revision process. Editing and revising is best left up to the cold and indifferent, and I must be almost psychopathic in my ability to slice and dice my writing.
