← Introduction to Ethnic Studies outline

Week 8 · Chapter

Chapter 8 — Midterm Review & Exam

Introduction to Ethnic Studies Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~35–45 minutes · Objective 1 (explain what ethnic studies is and how it works: its origins in the 1968-1969 student strikes, the questions it asks, its interdisciplinary methods, its four core fields and the comparisons among them, and the role of positionality in reading evidence), Objective 2 (define and distinguish the course's core concepts: race, ethnicity, and nationality; racialization and racial formation; ethnocentrism; prejudice, individual and institutional discrimination, and structural inequality; and intersectionality as distinct from adding identities together), Objective 3 (compare theories of belonging (assimilation, cultural pluralism, segmented assimilation, internal colonialism, and double consciousness) as frameworks with named authors and named critics, and distinguish immigrant from colonized or incorporated peoples), Objective 4 (analyze Native American and Indigenous experiences: tribal sovereignty as a political status, treaties, removal, allotment, boarding schools, termination and relocation, self-determination, repatriation, and survivance, using settler colonialism as a framework), Objective 5 (analyze African American experiences from slavery through emancipation, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the Great Migration, and the civil rights and Black freedom movements, reading the laws and court decisions that shaped them) · Read it early this week, before the review activities and well before the midterm.

In plain language

This chapter helps you review the first seven weeks before the midterm. Instead of rereading everything, you ask each topic for the one distinction it asks you to keep (a line between two ideas that are easy to mix up). You rerun each distinction on an example you have already worked, so nothing here is a new number. Then you meet one new idea: how to read an oral history (a recorded, first-person account gathered by interview) as evidence beside the written record. You finish by reading the archive's seven excerpts once as sources.

Why you already care about this

Think about the oldest story your family tells. Maybe a grandparent describes the year the family moved, or the winter the power went out for a week. Ask two relatives and you get two versions. One remembers the snow; the other remembers who brought soup. Neither is lying. Each remembers what mattered to them.

Now picture a school yearbook from that same year, or a dated notice in a newspaper. It will not tell you what the move felt like. It will tell you the date. You need both kinds of evidence to know what happened and what it meant.

That is the new piece of this week, and it sits on top of a review. In November 1968, students at San Francisco State began the strike that gave the field its first college. Since Week 1 you have studied the field those students fought for, one distinction at a time. This chapter gathers those distinctions in one place.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

state the one distinction each topic from Weeks 1 to 7 asks for, and rerun it on an example you have already worked;
sort an everyday scenario as prejudice, individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, or structural inequality;
tell an immigrant account from the account of a colonized or incorporated people, and explain why tribal citizenship is a political status;
tell de jure from de facto segregation using the lending table;
define oral history, testimonio, and primary source, and check an excerpt's dates against the dated record.

Carry this sentence with you: Feelings come from the voice; dates come from the record.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1 set out the field, its origins, and its methods. Week 2 defined race, ethnicity, nationality, and the kinds of discrimination. Week 3 taught the theories of belonging. Weeks 4 and 5 read Native nations' sovereignty, removal, relocation, and survivance. Weeks 6 and 7 read the laws that made and unmade slavery and segregation.
This week: a review of Weeks 1 to 7 organized by the one distinction each topic asks for, one new piece of material on oral history and testimonio as evidence, and the midterm.
How they connect: every worked example this week is one you have already met, and the archive you have read all term becomes the subject of the new material.
Where we're going next: Week 9 opens a new unit, Chicana/o and Latina/o experiences, and the archive starts to carry more weight in the second half of the course.

The midterm checks Objectives 1 to 5 as taught in Weeks 1 to 7. You take it without AI help, because it confirms that you personally can define the course's distinctions, place a law or case in time, read the lending table, and sort a scenario by concept. Every other activity this week, including the practice set and the discussion, welcomes a chatbot as a sparring partner, as long as you check what it says against the record.

1. Keep the field's shape: the four core fields and the origins

Picture a club fair on the first week of classes. Each table speaks for one group, and you walk past all of them. Ethnic studies does something different. It sets the tables side by side and asks what their stories share and where they differ.

Recall the course-exact definition from Week 1. Ethnic studies is the interdisciplinary study of how race and ethnicity have been made, lived, and contested in the United States, drawing on history, law, sociology, literature, and the accounts of communities themselves; the introductory course is comparative, studying several groups and the connections among them.

The field has a birthday of sorts. At San Francisco State the strike began in November 1968, led by the Black Student Union and the Third World Liberation Front. The College of Ethnic Studies was established there in 1969. The strike's length is said in words, "from November 1968 into the spring of 1969", because university pages give it differently.

Worked example — the origins in two numbers. Rerun the Week 1 placement.

The strike. It began in 1968.
The College. It was established in 1969.
The gap. 1969 − 1968 = 1 year apart.
The match. The strikers demanded 4 departments: American Indian Studies, Black Studies, La Raza Studies, and Asian American Studies. They line up with the course's 4 core fields: Native American and Indigenous studies, African American studies, Chicana/o and Latina/o studies, and Asian American and Pacific Islander studies.

In words: the strike began in 1968, the College it won was established 1 year later, and its 4 departments match the 4 core fields this course compares.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Which of the four core fields did you know least about before Week 1, and what does that tell you about your own position as a reader?
(b) Why might students in 1968 have asked for four departments inside one college, instead of four separate programs?

Misconception check. Students often think ethnic studies is the study of one group, or a course about blame. That is tempting, because each week puts one group's history at the center. But the field is comparative, and it studies how categories and inequalities were made and how people answered. The cure: when you review a week, name the comparison it sets up with another group.

2. Tell three look-alike pairs apart: race, ethnicity, nationality, and prejudice

Think about a form that asks you to "check all that apply". One box asks about race. Another asks where your family's ancestors came from. A third asks whether you are a citizen. Those are three different questions, even though people often answer them as one.

Here are the Week 2 definitions, word for word:

Race is a social classification of people by perceived physical difference, made and changed by societies over time. It is not a set of natural biological groups, but the inequality organized around it has real effects.
Ethnicity is a shared identity based on ancestry, language, religion, customs, or a sense of common origin.
Nationality is legal membership in a state, which is citizenship.
Prejudice is an attitude; discrimination is an action.

The federal categories on that form are the issuing body's categories for collecting data. The Census Bureau says its race categories reflect "a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically."

Worked example — three questions about one person (illustrative). A student (an illustrative case, not a real person) fills out a campus form.

Ethnicity. She speaks Portuguese at home and her family keeps holidays from the Azores. That is a shared language, customs, and sense of common origin.
Nationality. She was born in the United States, so she is a U.S. citizen. That is legal membership in a state.
Race. The form's race question asks her to place herself in one or more federal categories. That is a social classification, not a biological fact about her.
The pair inside the store. A clerk who privately thinks her accent means she cannot pay holds a prejudice. A clerk who refuses to open a register for her commits discrimination. The first is an attitude; the second is an action.

In words: one person can hold an ethnicity, a nationality, and a place in the federal categories at once, and each answers a different question.

Misconception check. Students often use race and ethnicity as synonyms, or read a census category as a biological fact. That is tempting, because forms put the questions side by side. But race is a social classification, ethnicity is shared ancestry and culture, and the Census Bureau itself says its categories are not an attempt to define race biologically. The cure: before you answer, ask which of the three questions is being asked.

3. Sort by who or what does it: individual, institutional, structural

Picture a game where the same pair of dice decides everyone's turn. If one player cheats, that is one person's act. If the rules themselves give some players fewer turns, nobody has to cheat for the game to be unequal. If the game has run for years and some families started with more pieces, the gap carries on even after the rules change.

Those are the three levels from Week 2:

Individual discrimination is one person's act of unequal treatment.
Institutional discrimination is unequal treatment produced by an organization's rules, policies, or routine practices, whether or not anyone involved intends it.
Structural inequality is unequal outcomes built up across many institutions over time.

Worked example — rerunning four keys from the concept-sorting set (illustrative). Sort each scenario by who or what does it.

P1. "A shopper privately assumes that a new neighbor from another country will not keep up the yard, but says and does nothing." An attitude and no act, so the key is prejudice.
I1. "A landlord tells a caller the apartment is taken after hearing the caller's accent, then shows it to the next caller." One person acts, so the key is individual discrimination.
N1. "A lender follows a written rule that rates every loan in a grade D neighborhood as too risky, no matter who applies." The rule does the work, so the key is institutional discrimination.
S1. Decades after lending maps graded neighborhoods, homes in once-redlined areas are worth less, families there have less wealth to pass on, and schools have less money. The outcome is built up across housing, wealth, and schools, so the key is structural inequality.
The whole set. 4 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 15 keyed scenarios, and 4 + 4 = 8 of them are acts of discrimination.

In words: P1 is an attitude, I1 is one person's act, N1 is a rule, and S1 is an outcome built up over time, and only I1 and N1 are acts of discrimination.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a rule at a job, a school, or a team that treats people differently without anyone meaning harm. Which level is it, and why?
(b) The set's three borderline cases are discussed and never keyed. Pick the dress-code case and argue for one reading.

Misconception check. Students often think institutional discrimination needs a prejudiced person behind it. That is tempting, because we picture discrimination as someone's choice. But N1's lender follows a written rule, and no one has to intend the result for it to be unequal. The cure: ask whether the unequal treatment would continue if every person involved were replaced.

4. Compare the theories of belonging: three distinctions from Week 3

Picture a family whose parents keep a home language and a holiday while the children's friends come from everywhere. Week 3 asked what it means for that family to belong. Each framework gives a different answer, and each one has an author, a year, and critics.

Three distinctions carry the week:

Assimilation versus cultural pluralism. Assimilation is the process of a group taking on the dominant society's culture and entering its institutions. Cultural pluralism is keeping distinct cultures within a shared democracy instead of fusing them into one, an idea argued by Kallen (1915) in "Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot".
Assimilation versus segmented assimilation. Assimilation pictures one path. Segmented assimilation, from Portes and Zhou (1993), holds that the children of immigrants follow different paths: upward into the middle class, downward into lasting poverty, or upward while keeping the community's ties and values.
Immigrant versus colonized or incorporated peoples. Immigrant peoples came by choice under the country's immigration rules. Colonized or incorporated peoples became part of the United States by conquest, annexation, or force.

Worked example — the frameworks in time, and the callback pair. Place the frameworks, then sort two excerpts.

The answer to the melting pot. Zangwill's play The Melting-Pot was first staged in 1908, and Kallen's essay answered it in 1915. 1915 − 1908 = 7 years later.
Following the children. Gordon's Assimilation in American Life appeared in 1964, and Portes and Zhou wrote in 1993. 1993 − 1964 = 29 years after Gordon.
E3 (illustrative). A nurse who arrived in the early 1970s after the 1965 law came by choice under the immigration rules. Hers is an immigrant account.
E4 (illustrative). A man whose family moved to a city under the federal relocation program in the late 1950s belongs to a nation that did not arrive as immigrants. His is the account of a colonized or incorporated people.

In words: cultural pluralism answered the melting pot 7 years after the play, segmented assimilation came 29 years after Gordon, and E3 and E4 sit on opposite sides of the field's central distinction.

Misconception check. Students often read the melting pot as a description of what happened to every group. That is tempting, because the image is famous and hopeful. But it is an image, and critics note that classic assimilation theory assumes one immigrant path that does not fit peoples incorporated by conquest, slavery, or colonization. The cure: before applying any framework, ask how the group became part of the United States.

5. Keep tribal sovereignty a political status, not a racial category

Think about two neighboring towns that sign an agreement about a shared river. Nobody asks what the residents look like. The agreement is between two governments. Week 4 asked you to read Native nations the same way.

Tribal sovereignty is the inherent right of Native nations to govern themselves. Tribal citizenship is membership in a Native nation, set by that nation's own government; it is a political status, like citizenship in any nation, and not a racial category. A treaty is a written agreement between nations in which each side gives something and is promised something.

Worked example — the status across a century. Follow the political status through two dated laws.

The treaty. The Fort Laramie Treaty (1868) was an agreement between nations, the United States and the Sioux Nation.
Self-determination. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act came in 1975, under which tribes run their own programs.
The span. 1975 − 1868 = 107 years later.
The voice. E4 (illustrative) says it in one line: "My children are citizens of our nation."

In words: from the 1868 treaty to the 1975 act, the record treats Native nations as governments, and E4's line names a political status, not a race.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Name a group you belong to whose membership is set by its own rules, not by how you look. How is it like or unlike tribal citizenship?
(b) Why does it matter that E4 says his children "are" citizens, in the present tense?

Misconception check. Students often think tribal sovereignty is a racial preference, or speak of Native nations only in the past tense. That is tempting, because many films and books have told Native history as if it ended long ago. But sovereignty is a government's right to govern, and Native nations exist and govern today. The cure: write about Native nations in the present tense, and name the status as political.

6. Separate de jure from de facto segregation

Picture two towns' schools (an illustrative pair). In the first, a printed rule assigns children to schools by race. In the second, no rule mentions race, but the school boundary follows a highway, and the housing on each side was shaped by lending grades. Both towns are segregated. Only one has a law that says so.

De jure segregation is separation of groups that a law requires, such as the state school laws that the Supreme Court struck down in 1954.
De facto segregation is separation of groups that exists in practice without a law requiring it, often built by housing patterns, lending rules, and school boundaries rather than by accident.

Worked example — the law, then the practice. Read one case pair and one table.

The law. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) upheld de jure segregation on railways, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) struck down school segregation by law 1954 − 1896 = 58 years later.
The practice, in rates. In the illustrative lending table (Dataset D), A-rated neighborhoods have an approval rate of 90 percent and D-rated neighborhoods 10 percent, so the gap is 90 − 10 = 80 percentage points.
The practice, in loans. A-rated neighborhoods get 18 approved loans each against 2 in D-rated neighborhoods, and 18 ÷ 2 = 9, a ratio of 9 to 1.
The voice. E2 (illustrative) rode in "the car set aside for Black passengers until we were out of the South", which is separation by law. In the new city "there were neighborhoods where the bank would not lend to us", which is separation built by lending.

In words: the train car was de jure segregation and the bank's map built de facto segregation. The lending table shows one rule producing 18 loans per neighborhood versus 2, a 9-fold difference, without any law naming a race.

Misconception check. Students often think de facto segregation is accidental. That is tempting, because "in practice" sounds like "by chance". But the lending table shows a rule sorting neighborhoods, and the boundary along the highway was drawn by someone. The cure: when you see separation without a law, look for the rule or practice that built it.

7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source

Go back to the family story from the start of this chapter. Your grandparent's account of the move tells you how it felt. A dated notice from that year tells you when it happened. Each answers a different question, and a careful reader keeps both.

An oral history is a recorded first-person account of the past, gathered by interview with the narrator's informed consent. It is a source for how people experienced events, and you read it alongside documents, not in place of them. The narrator is the person who tells their own experience in the interview. Informed consent is the narrator's agreement to be interviewed, given after they understand what will be asked and how the account will be used. The archive's intake rules put that consent first: every narrator is an adult who agreed, and each signs a consent and release form before the recording begins.

Here is the caveat every oral history carries. Memory is selective and reconstructive. People remember what mattered to them and retell it in later terms. So you read an excerpt for experience and meaning, and you check its dates and figures against dated records.

That gives you the week's distinction. A primary source is a record made at the time by a participant or witness, such as a statute, a court opinion, an executive order, a letter, or a photograph. An oral history is an account recorded later, by interview, about the narrator's own experience.

Worked example — sorting four pieces of evidence. Ask when each one was made.

The text of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). A court opinion written in 1896 by the Court itself. It is a primary source.
E2 (illustrative). A woman describes leaving the South in 1943, interviewed in the 1990s. It is an oral history, recorded about half a century later.
A letter a worker wrote home in 1943 (an illustrative case). Made at the time by a participant. It is a primary source.
E4 (illustrative). A man describes his family's move in the late 1950s, interviewed in the 2000s. It is an oral history.
The check on E2. The family left in 1943, and the Great Migration ran from roughly the 1910s to the 1970s, so the date fits the dated record. The train car came 1943 − 1896 = 47 years after Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

In words: the opinion and the letter were made at the time, the two interviews were recorded decades later, and E2's 1943 checks out against the dated record of the Great Migration.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Think of a story you have told many times. What details have you added or dropped, and why?
(b) A narrator remembers a date wrong. Does that make the rest of the account untrue? Explain your reasoning.

Misconception check. Students often think an oral history is less true than a document, or that it is a record of exact dates and figures. That is tempting, because documents look official and memories can shift. But each answers different questions: the document tells you what was required or recorded, and the account tells you what it meant to live it. The cure: read the account for experience and meaning, and check its dates against the record.

8. Hear testimonio: one voice speaking for a community

Picture a member of a tenants' committee (an illustrative case). She tells the story of a rent strike in her building. She says "I", but she makes sure her neighbors' part goes on the record too: who knocked on doors, who kept the list, who stood in the lobby. Her story is hers, and it is also theirs.

Testimonio is a first-person account of collective struggle, told by a narrator who speaks as a witness for a community. The form is associated with Latin American writing and is used in Chicana/o and Latina/o studies. Its "I" carries a "we".

Worked example — oral history and testimonio side by side. Compare the two forms step by step.

What both share. Each is a first-person account, and each is told by a narrator who agreed to tell it.
What testimonio adds. The narrator speaks as a witness for a community's struggle, not only about a private life.
A line that makes the move. E4 (illustrative) is an oral history, not a testimonio. But its last words, "We are still here", turn from "I" to "we" and speak for a nation.
The tenants' committee. The narrator names the collective struggle and speaks for her neighbors, so her account has the shape of testimonio.

In words: every testimonio is a first-person account, but it speaks as a witness for a community, and E4's last line shows that move in a single sentence.

Misconception check. Students often read testimonio as one person's private story. That is tempting, because it is told in the first person. But the narrator speaks as a witness for a community, and the "I" carries a "we". The cure: when you read a first-person account, ask for whom the narrator is speaking.

9. Read the seven excerpts as sources

You have met every excerpt in the archive by now, some briefly. This week you read all seven once, in the same way, as sources. For each one you ask three questions: who is speaking, when the account was recorded, and what an interview can and cannot prove.

The table below lists each excerpt by role and decade. The last column counts the years between the decade described and the decade of the interview, decade to decade, from the first year of each.

The archive's seven illustrative excerpts: each narrator's role, the decade described, the decade of the interview, and the years between them
Excerpt	Narrator's role (illustrative)	Decade described	Decade interviewed	Years between
E1	a farmworker who came on a bracero contract	1950s	2000s	50
E2	a woman whose family moved north in the Great Migration	1940s	1990s	50
E3	a nurse who arrived after the 1965 immigration law	early 1970s	2010s	40
E4	a man whose family moved to a city under the federal relocation program	late 1950s	2000s	50
E5	a woman who resettled as a refugee	early 1980s	2010s	30
E6	a student who joined a high-school walkout	1960s	2000s	40
E7	a retired teacher whose parents were incarcerated	1940s	1990s	50

The laws and events tied to E1, E5, E6, and E7 come in Weeks 9 to 12, so this week you read those four only as sources. That is a limitation by design: you can say who is speaking and when, and you hold the history for later.

Worked example — reading the archive as a set of sources. Count the gaps, then check one date.

The longest gap. E1, E2, E4, and E7 were each recorded 2000 − 1950 = 50 years after the decade they describe, counting decade to decade.
The middle gap. E3 and E6 were recorded 2010 − 1970 = 40 years after.
The shortest gap. E5 was recorded 2010 − 1980 = 30 years after.
The count. That is 4 + 2 + 1 = 7 excerpts, and every one was recorded at least 30 years after the decade it describes.
E4 checked. The relocation offices opened in 1951 and the Indian Relocation Act came in 1956, 1956 − 1951 = 5 years apart, and a late-1950s move falls after both, so the date fits.
What E4 can prove. It can tell you that the promised job lasted four months and how the family met families from a dozen nations at the Indian center.
What E4 cannot prove. It cannot tell you how many families the program moved or how long most jobs lasted. Those questions belong to dated records.

In words: each of Weeks 1 to 7 asks you to keep one distinction, and the archive's excerpts are oral histories recorded 30 to 50 years later, so you read them for experience and meaning and check their dates against the record, as E2's 1943 and E4's late 1950s both check out.

Pause and think. Choose one option and answer it in two or three sentences:

(a) Pick one excerpt from the table. What would you want to ask its narrator that the excerpt does not answer?
(b) Your own position shapes what you notice. Which excerpt did you read most closely this term, and why do you think that was?

Misconception check. Students often think a long gap between the events and the interview makes an excerpt worthless. That is tempting, because memory changes over 30 or 50 years. But the gap is exactly why you read the excerpt for experience and meaning and check its dates elsewhere. The cure: name the gap, then ask what the account can still show that no document can.

Key terms

Oral history — A recorded first-person account of the past, gathered by interview with the narrator's informed consent; it is a source for how people experienced events, read alongside documents rather than in place of them. (first used: 7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source)
Narrator — The person who tells their own experience in an oral-history interview; the narrator chooses the topics and may restrict or withdraw any part of the account. (first used: 7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source)
Informed consent — A person's agreement to be interviewed or recorded, given after they understand what will be asked, how the account will be used, and that they may skip a question or stop at any time. (first used: 7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source)
Memory as selective and reconstructive — The way people remember what mattered to them and retell it in later terms, so an oral history is read for experience and meaning while its dates and figures are checked against dated records. (first used: 7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source)
Primary source — A record made at the time by a participant or witness, such as a statute, a court opinion, an executive order, a letter, or a photograph, set against an oral history, which is recorded later by interview about the narrator's own experience. (first used: 7. Read an oral history as evidence: memory, consent, and the primary source)
Testimonio — A first-person account of collective struggle, told by a narrator who speaks as a witness for a community; the form is associated with Latin American writing and is used in Chicana/o and Latina/o studies. (first used: 8. Hear testimonio: one voice speaking for a community)

Summary

Each topic from Weeks 1 to 7 asks you to keep one distinction.
Ethnic studies compares four core fields; the 1968 strike won a college in 1969.
Race, ethnicity, and nationality answer three different questions.
Prejudice is an attitude; discrimination is an action.
Individual, institutional, and structural name who or what does the harm.
Immigrant peoples came by choice; colonized or incorporated peoples did not.
Tribal citizenship is a political status, not a racial category.
De jure segregation is written in law; de facto segregation is built by practice.
An oral history is read for experience and meaning; its dates are checked against the record.
A primary source is made at the time; an oral history is recorded later.
Testimonio speaks as a witness for a community.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

An illustrative neighborhood history project (not a real one) recorded 15 interviews in the 2020s: 3 about the 1960s, 6 about the 1990s, and 6 about the 2000s. Counting decade to decade, how many years separate each group of interviews from the decade it describes, and do the groups add up?
In that project, a narrator says the corner bakery closed "the year my daughter started kindergarten, in 1994." The city's business license file shows the license ended in 1995. How should a careful reader handle the difference?
Sort each item as a primary source or an oral history: (a) a school board's printed minutes from a meeting in 1972; (b) a 2019 interview with a retired bus driver about her first route in the 1980s; (c) a photograph taken at a parade in 1975.
A classmate writes, "Testimonio is a diary: one person's private feelings about their own life." Explain what is wrong with the sentence and how to fix it.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

Count from the first year of each decade. The 1960s to the 2020s: 2020 − 1960 = 60 years. The 1990s to the 2020s: 2020 − 1990 = 30 years. The 2000s to the 2020s: 2020 − 2000 = 20 years. The groups add up: 3 + 6 + 6 = 15 interviews. These are fresh, illustrative interviews, not the course's archive.
Memory is selective and reconstructive, so a one-year difference in a remembered date is ordinary. The license file is a record made at the time, so it is the better guide to the closing date. The account still tells you something the file cannot: the narrator ties the closing to her daughter's first school year, so you learn what the bakery meant to her family. Note the difference, trust the record for the date, and keep the account for the meaning.
(a) The minutes were made at the time by the board, so they are a primary source. (b) The interview was recorded decades later about the narrator's own experience, so it is an oral history. (c) The photograph was made at the time by a witness, so it is a primary source.
The sentence treats testimonio as a private story. Testimonio is a first-person account of collective struggle, told by a narrator who speaks as a witness for a community. A fixed sentence: "Testimonio is a first-person account in which the narrator speaks as a witness for a community's struggle."

Next up in this module: the lecture, the slide deck, the Readings & Resources page, the practice set, the discussion, and the midterm — and next week, Week 9 opens the Chicana/o and Latina/o field, where the reading method you practiced on the archive meets new laws and new voices.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com