When Primary Sources do Double Duty OR When Halloween and Politics Collide

Earlier this week, I posted about a primary source analysis that a class of fifth graders did. The focus was on lost traditions, specifically, the lost superstitions of doing certain activities to find your spouse on Halloween. We used an 1896 drawing along with a newspaper article to uncover the lost superstition of looking at a mirror holding a candle to look for the image of your future spouse. Through my own analysis and with the help of some others, I found out quite a bit more about the drawing and the intention behind it.


Through the analysis of the 1896 drawing, many students focused on the dress of the woman shown. Her top is covered with stars, the bottom with stripes, giving it a flag effect that is difficult to ignore. She stands at a dresser and mirror, her hand on a candle. There is a reflection of a man in the mirror.  The man shown in the reflection isn't the dashing young man that one might expect to be shown in the representation of this superstition. Four days ago, when I found the newspaper article that referenced the superstition, I was just happy that I had some understanding of the image.

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2011645580/

Then, another layer of the drawing started to reveal itself. First, an educator in the TPS Teachers Network that I am a part of shared a similar image. This one referenced the tradition in a satire of the 1904 election. In the image, Uncle Sam is walking down the stairs holding a candle and a mirror. In the mirror is the image of Teddy Roosevelt. In the background, other candidates walking around with candles and mirrors looking for their "match". I wondered about the woman in stars and stripes from the other picture, but hadn't put together the pieces yet.


That afternoon, another fifth grade class came in for the activity. The teacher was very active and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1896

jumped right in to do the analysis of the drawing with the students. As students read the newspaper article, I asked if she had ever heard of this superstition. She shared that she hadn't, but it made her wonder more about the questions that she had written as part of her analysis and wondered aloud if there was an election in 1896. Everything clicked into place for me. I shared a little about the other picture and she quickly looked up information on the 1896 election. There, on wikipedia, was an image of William McKinley which bore a eerie resemblance to the "ghostly" image in the mirror from the 1896 drawing. We were left with a new interpretation, that of Lady Liberty looking for her future spouse.

There I discovered a whole new meaning to this 1896 drawing. It was the political satire of the day. The 8th grade social studies teacher could use this in studies of the late 1800's. The high school political studies teacher could pair these images with more current political cartoons involving Halloween traditions. Either class could explore the illustrator's intended audience. Those aren't areas that I would explore with fifth grade students, but them learning the tradition could give them key background knowledge if revisiting the primary source later.

In addition to the many places this primary source could work among different grade levels, the collaboration to get to meaning is worth noting. I made my own learning discoveries with the help of colleagues. Without them, I would never have discovered that deeper meaning to the 1896 drawing. Similarly, students benefit when discussing primary sources together. Their thinking is stretched and challenged. Pieces of understanding from multiple students can be put together to deeper meaning than they can achieve alone. While it may not be appropriate to constantly have students collaborating during the analysis of a primary source, having them come together at different points in the process can reap great benefits.

When that 92 Year Old Halloween Newspaper Article ISN'T a Primary Source

What makes something a primary source? Before I attended the Library of Congress Summer Institute, I thought I knew, but a definition by the Library of Congress, has helped me evolve that definition.

The Library of Congress gives three descriptors when defining a primary source. They describe primary sources as the "raw materials of history." To further define this, they also describe them as "original documents and objects which were created at the time under study" and differentiate them from secondary sources which were "created by someone without firsthand experience." I revisited this definition recently when preparing a Halloween activity for fifth grade students.

http://cdn.loc.gov/service/pnp/acd/2a07000/2a07300/2a07327r.jpg

Students like looking back in time. What was Halloween like 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Primary sources can provide answers to those questions. For this activity, I focused on a 1896 drawing of a woman, her hand resting on candle and looking into a mirror with a reflection of a man. I had looked at the image many times and it made little sense to me. I thought it might be a reference to a ghost or deceased loved one, but her lack of expression confused me.

Recently, I explored Chronicling America for newspaper articles on Halloween. I found a 1922 article titled Mischief Night which may explain the photo. The article references a superstition that on Halloween a woman could hold a candle to a mirror and see her future husband's face. The article implies that she must be walking down the stairs backwards when doing this, but the general idea is portrayed in the drawing. I felt it helped to shed light on the drawing and it was short enough that I could use it as part of a lesson on this lost superstition.

As I prepared to use the article, I asked the question, was this a primary source? If I was asking myself what Halloween was like 120 years ago, this newspaper writing didn't qualify. It was written 92 years ago, a generation after the drawing was created. In addition, the article read, "Time was, when Hallowe'en..." when describing the superstition with the mirror, referencing something that existed in the past. In this context, this article was a secondary source.

Did I still use the article? Absolutely. Students analyzed the drawing and, in small groups, came to consensus on what the illustrator was trying to portray. They then read the article and had an opportunity to revise their thinking. The lesson went wonderfully and as part of that lesson, the students and I had a great discussion about what makes something a primary source. Finally, I asked the students what I could do if I wanted to confirm this account from 25 years after the drawing. A couple of students suggested that finding a newspaper from 1896 that referenced Halloween could be a solution. From there I was able to briefly share two primary source articles, one from 1891 and another from 1895, that referenced Halloween as a night to "reveal your future spouse's face" and when "maidens try to find out who will wed them."

Something being "old" doesn't make it a primary source. Instead, looking at the time period you are studying will help to define if that image, map, document, or object is a primary or secondary source and while that doesn't determine whether you will use it or not with your students, it can impact how you approach using the resource.