The view os bottom rail Essays - Abuse, Crimes Against Humanity

The View from the Bottom Rail ?The View from the Bottom Rail? James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle Copyright 1986 by Alfred A. Knopf Inc. The Lewinsky Scandal? A perfect example as to why we cannot accept everything at face value before carefully examining it first. Everyone thought President Clinton was behaving himself in the White House, but, as it turns out, he was most definitely not. This can be the same for history. We must carefully consider different aspects of articles so that we do no make the mistake of believing everything we read. In order to fully understand an article, we must understand the author that wrote it. It is necessary to examine prejudices, sources, information left out, and missing background information before accepting an article. This method of critical analysis allows us to better understand the article and therefore history because we are more aware of the authors and their possible mishaps. ?The View from the Bottom Rail?, an article in After the Fact, provides an opportunity to examine different aspects of analysis. If we look at it carefully, then we will be able to determine if the thesis was proven effectively. In ?The View from the Bottom Rail?, the authors, James Davidson and Mark Lytle, proposed, ?For several reasons, that debased position has made it unusually difficult for historians to recover the freedman?s point of view.? Within the article, Davidson and Lytle cycled through different aspects as to why it is hard for historians to determine the ?view from the bottom rail?. They questioned the validity of many sources that, if accurate, would have contained the perspective of an ex-slave. These sources included both white and black testimony. In order to examine these sources, the authors traced the topics using microcosm. Because they were covering a topic and not an event, microcosm was the most appropriate method of examining the subject. Davidson and Lytle first introduced a source. Then, they pondered over the different ways that the source could be biased. They took small segments from the source and used those to demonstrate why the source could not be taken at face value. For example, when examining the proposed source of a slave master?s account, Davidson and Lytle examined one aspect of this to make a conclusion. They determined that, ?With slaves so dependent on the master?s authority, they were hardly likely to reveal their true feelings; the dangerous consequences of such indiscretion was too great.? Therefore, they were able to conclude that, for the most part, a master would never truly know what his slave?s point of view was. The authors proceeded to attack the other sources in this method. The other sources that Davidson and Lytle examined were not only diverse but also effective. Many of the sources were direct quotations from the words of freedmen, including two in-depth interviews of the same ex-slave by different reporters. Other sources included stories and writings of both southern and northern whites. While almost all of the sources were primary, many were taken from secondary source books that included the words of primary sources. Taking primary sources from secondary source books can be a dangerous habit because it is not known what the author of the secondary source chose to leave out. The primary sources may have already been biased even before Davidson and Lytle were able to make their own focuses. However, some of the sources were direct primary sources such as letters and diaries. In addition, all sources used were done so effectively. The diversity of the sources made the authors? argument more convincing since their views were not limited to one kind o f source. By not depending heavily on any one type of source, Davidson and Lytle were able to cover multiple opinions. This effective use of research leaves very few questions unanswered. However, it would be helpful to know how location affected the freedman?s point of view. Blacks were treated differently depending on location, workplace, and status. The authors failed to examine different locations as changing point of views. Since the authors establish that it is difficult to determine the point of view at all, it was not their responsibility to answer this question. However, it would be