History of American Radicalism Fall 2007

It’s been a while for me on this blog and I have been thinking about this subject for a couple of classes now even though we have moved on a bit. After reading The Solitude of Self, I do feel like society has come a long way towards viewing women and men with the same respect since Stanton’s time. It is easier for women, as Gornick beautifully stated, “know the freedom of money, education, and sexual experience”. But, with this greater freedom has come unexpected responsibility. I have heard this responsibility called “double burden” Double burden is a term that describes the workload of women who work to earn money but also have the responsibility for unpaid, domestic labor in the household. According the online dictionary of social sciences, Canadian studies have consistently shown that women still perform far greater domestic care than men and are therefore subjugated to a far greater workload than men both in Canada and the United States. I believe that there should be programs in place to counter this societal balance such as daycare at the workplace and longer maternity leave without fear of losing your job. However, I won’t go as far as the Soviets. They actually viewed household activities as a burden so much so that they turned childrearing and chores into communal activities. I, in fact, look forward to the day in which I can have a successful career and a happy, healthy family. Hopefully, my theoretical husband will help me with this. I am sure both Stanton and Gornick would agree with me on this point of continuing equality in the workplace by enabling specific programs to ease the double burden. But, since reading Salvatore’s book on socialist leader Eugene Debs, I am not entirely convinced that women are the only ones to lose by following societal stereotypes. If a man’s worth is entirely tied to the workplace, such as it has been since the early 1900’s, if a man follows this view can he feel the same self worth as a woman that takes pride in her public and private sphere. It may be equal but opposite oppression. A man that chooses to stay at home with his children while his wife works a powerful job that man may be looked down upon by his neighbors because he is not providing for his wife and family. What do you think?

Posted by Mary G Lugg at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Claire’s comment to Matthias’ entry about Elizabeth Cady Stanton sparked my interest and I think it would be beneficial to reevaluate in terms of the AFL and the ARU.

The American Federation of Labor (AFL) was founded in 1886 by Samuel Gompers with the intention of protecting laborers from harsh working conditions, wage cuts, etc. Notice that the AFL was concerned with the interests of laborers outside of the railroad industry, and as we know from our reading, would eventually become a rallying point for the trade-specific brotherhoods within the railroad industry. As discussed in class, this federation was openly slanted in favor of skilled workers. Though not addressed in class, this position was by definition in the 1880’s and 1890’s largely a racist position as black and non-native (I'm not sure about non-African American, native U.S. Americans of color) laborers were largely “unskilled.”

In contrast to the AFL, the American Railroad Union (ARU) was concerned with the plight of laborers of all classes within the railroad industry, skilled and “unskilled” alike. (I am unaware of their position on race and non-native relations, so if any one can enlighten me, that'd be appreciated.) This is demonstrated by the Great Northern Strike which affected primarily “unskilled” workers; where the brotherhoods lobbied to protect the interests of the skilled workers, the ARU was created to protect the interests of all workers, especially those concerning wages. The ARU was created to meet the industry’s need for a truly egalitarian labor organization. Its extreme popularity (it was the largest organization of its kind during its existence) further illustrates its appeal to the mass of railroad workers (not just the few skilled laborers).

In this particular historical moment, there were two main labor organizations: a federation dedicated to protecting the old middle classes’ interests and a union whose goal was to protect the rights of all employees from exploitation by railroad owners. The ARU threatened the system by questioning the system of capitalism as a whole, while the AFL supported capitalism by distinguishing between skilled and “unskilled” laborers in an attempt to elevate one group of workers over another. Within a year of its establishment, the system crushed (by the force of 20,000 soldiers) the ARU. I am confident that few of us are surprised by this suppression of democracy.

In light of these actions, to what extent can we explain the classism and (arguably unintentional, albeit present) racism of the AFL as systemic problems (i.e., if they identified with other workers and saw their conflict with the plutocracy, they would have faced the same fate as the ARU). In applying this to the argument about Stanton’s racism, was it indeed systemic? Did the affluent, white, male-led government fear universal suffrage enough to pit oppressed groups against one another just as it feared the concept realized in the ARU? Or, was it the racism of a woman (in the case of the AFL, men) who felt her (their) socioeconomic status, native birth, and skin color entitled her (them) to suffrage (labor rights) regardless (because) of her (their) sex (skill level)?

Posted by Rebecca A Alexander at 12:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As nobody wrote about Elizabeth Stanton yet, I will do this.
I really like her lifetime story. It was really interesting to see how she devoted her whole life to the women's suffrage issues. Although she had to struggle for so long she never gave up and kept on going. And in the meantime she manged to have a household and seven children.
This was really impressing to read. On the other side it was also a little bit strange to me to read how she reacted when she heard that the black males are going to get their right to vote.
Although she should be able to understand what it meant to them and how important it is for them in terms of becoming equal citizens, she is offended and outraged that the blacks, or Sambos as she called them, were given the right to vote before the white American women were grated that right.
This fact really astonished me and I don't really know what I should think about it. Was she a racist person or was is just the frustration of all those years of struggling with different governments?
I can totally understand that this kind of struggle that she had, those years of fighting and never winning will turn a person into a bitter one. And this is maybe a reason why she said those racist comments. On the other side should someone like her be able to happy for an other group of people that was fighting for the same cause as her group.

Posted by Matthias Pongratz at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Early in Gerrit Smith's carreer as an abolitionist he believed that it was his duty to create heaven on earth by purging the evil institution of slavery (America's original sin) from the earth. He believed he had the right to end slavery because he believed that it was what God wanted.

In the 1850's Gerrit Smith had a new take on his religion. He believed that the Bible was "not the supreme authority" but instead humanity needs to apply reason to the Bible. He believed that since the Bible was created by humans it should therefore be governed by the tool of reason possesed by humans. Moreover he believed that instincts and emotions "were one and the same with God's sovereignty." In short Gerrit believed that instincts to interpret God's will. This made Smith believe that he was justified in his actions because his interpretations (and likewise others' interpretations) of the Bible if guided by insticts and reason were God's will.

However Smith hated when people used the Bible to back the idea of a natural hierarchy between men and women. Similarly he hated how the Constitution could be used to back slavery. Smith stated that people "run to the Bible not to learn the truth, but to make the Bible the minister of folly and sin." Here is where I believe Smith is hypocritical. He believes since man has the capacity to use reason and instincts to interpret the Bible they should use it instead of taking it literally. So when interpretations differ from Smiths view, they are not viewed as an extension of God's will but instead a tool of evil.

Posted by Tyler D Defrees at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Much time has been spent trying to comprehend ad understand what was going on inside of John Brown’s head. It I irrelevant! If a soldier is in a little village in Vietnam and is ordered to execute some women and children, we look at whether or not he obeys. If he does, he is a bad man. If he does not, he is a good man. His mental state does not come into play. Maybe he knew it was wrong and he really really didn’t want to do it, but he did it anyways. Who cares? It is your actions that ultimately end up speaking for you.
Regardless of how John Brown felt, his actions speak for themselves. Let’s say he raided Harper’s Ferry for the sole purpose of being narcissistically remembered as the most committed abolitionist of all time. That does not negate what he did. During a time when even the slaves were too cowardly to stand up to their masters and fight/die for justice, this man, who could have gone on to live along, high profile life, willingly sacrificed himself to inspire others.
People say that what he did had no chance of success, but I disagree. It was not an over-ambitious assumption that a caste of people that had been raped, abused, and exploited for two hundred years would finally be ready to take their freedom into their own hands when given the opportunity. The Haitian’s had recently fought a violent uprising which ended the evil that was slavery. Why is it unacceptable for people to use violence in order to counteract the violence that is being acted upon them?
Many people have aversions to the violence employed by John Brown. Unless you are a pacifist and condemn violence of any kind for any reason (defeat the Nazis etc.), you cannot rule out the use of violence as a means to end slavery. American slavery was the worst form of evil that the modern world had seen. If violence was not warranted for its defeat, then when would it ever be appropriate?

Posted by Jeremiah W Adler at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Since I did a lot of thinking out loud today during class, I'm going to try to clarify my position here.

Stauffer has a complex view of Gerrit Smith and John Brown. In some ways he is very supportive of both their methodology and ideology, while at other times he affirms one and criticizes the other. While I am confident that the above statements are true, I disagree with those who expressed that Stauffer wrote this book to provide 21st century Americans a portrait of 19th century white American men that would help to ease their "guilt as white people."

This interpretation would require Stauffer believing that Smith and Brown were people whose whole identities were admirable. Rather, in these men Stauffer found the qualities that could combine to make both the strongest and the weakest abolitionist. Brown's unwavering "black heart" and his idea that "all humans [must] interfere with slavery" and Smith's resistance to violence as means of "interference" are qualities that Stauffer would advocate. However, it is my contention that Stauffer is disappointed in Brown's violent actions in Kansas and Virginia and Smith's loss of a "black heart" and general abandonment of the cause of slavery and his friend, James McCune Smith.

What is interesting to me is how Stauffer marginalizes McCune Smith and Douglass. In these men, he could find unwavering black hearts and a dedication to the cause that surpassed Harper's Ferry without directly condoning vigilante violence. Why didn't he put them at the center of this book? This is still a lingering question to me. I hope you all will be able to help me answer it and give me feedback about the statements I made above.

Posted by Rebecca A Alexander at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I understand it, Stauffer’s main focus is in showing the character shifts and interconnections of Gerrit Smith, McCune Smith, Douglass, and Brown in their struggle for abolition. I feel like the book definitely supports the argument that these men were radical and worked to change what they rightly identify as an oppressive system and to bring freedom to those who did not have it. A large focus seems to be on Smith and Brown and we are made to see the things these white men have sacrificed and the ways in which they have contributed to the abolitionist cause- when they had no apparent reason or need to.

However, Stauffer argues that through this process both Smith and Brown acquire “black hearts” and view themselves as black, thus truly understanding the oppression they were working against. I find this aspect of his argument problematic. While I agree that these men had very good intentions and did what they could to help the abolitionist cause, I don’t agree that they fully understood the oppression they were fighting and therefore I don’t think they could have identified with being black, as Stauffer argues. The reason I say that they didn’t fully understand the oppression is because, based upon their actions, I don’t think either of them fully understood their own privilege as white men. Without understanding that privilege and how, its presence means that oppression remains, they would not have been able to understand what it meant to be black in that society and therefore couldn’t have seen things from a black perspective.

Stauffer speaks about Gerrit Smith constantly trying to “help” blacks, giving them “gifts” with the hope that they will benefit from them. This idea of “friendly whites” working to “diminish the obstacles of prejudice and oppression,” while it is definitely an improvement from those who were working to keep blacks from “freedom,” still elevates Smith as being privileged. “Helping” also emphasizes that he is doing people of color a favor. However, if he internalized the oppression of blacks, which I feel Stauffer is arguing, Smith would not have looked at his efforts as doing something for people of color, but rather looked at it as a necessity for himself because of his investment and understanding of the struggle. [Perhaps this is part of the reason he is able to move away from the abolitionist cause later in life.] Smith would not be able to use his privilege (although he tries to use it to help others) and fully understand and identify with the oppression at the same time.

Also, I understand that a big reason both Smith and Brown assumed leadership roles was because they were primarily motivated by religious reasons and their visions of themselves as God’s “prophets.” However, if they did understand their privilege, they would have recognized that they would not have been able to use it to successfully dismantle a system of inequality. I would think it would be harder to move toward change in a way that eliminates this oppression without people who experience it in those critical leadership roles.

I understand that a counter argument would be that they had wanted to give the reins to blacks, but that the community at the time would have been unwilling. I don’t think either of these men is “bad” or is not “radical” because of what I presented. I just think that Stauffer may have stretched too far in his argument that these two white men could have identified with and fully understood the oppression of blacks at this time.

Posted by Danielle F Espiritu at 05:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Chapter seven of Stauffer’s book introduces the four protagonists’ ideas about women’s rights and gender equality. On the one hand, these men clearly had very progressive views about women for their time- often more progressive than their female contemporaries, it seems- and their strong statements of these ideals is, of course, to be commended (I am thinking here of McCune Smith’s “Republic of Letters”, and Gerrit Smith’s letter to Elizabeth Stanton stating that “man and woman are one in their rights, in their responsibility, in their duties, dignity, and destiny.”) However, Stauffer also makes a point of emphasizing that the oppression of women was seen by these men as a secondary sin to slavery. They felt that if they could succeed in overthrowing the slavery system and its death-grip on American economy and society, than all the other sinful institutions in the nation would crumble of their own accord (p. 209).
What strikes me about this idea, other than the fact that it is a little absurd, is the reason they didn’t see the women’s movement as a pressing and urgent matter. Stauffer doesn’t directly give any reasoning for this hierarchy of evils- slavery being worse that the oppression of women, which probably outranked worker’s rights- but I couldn’t help but think as I read that it may have had something to do with the fact that while women were being denied equal rights and being treated as “perpetual minors”, they were still being taken care of financially by their white male counterparts. Perhaps slavery was seen as the more urgent cause because the slaves had no one but themselves to defend them against aggressive and often cruel masters. Could it be that it was because women were kept in relative comfort in this paternalistic, chauvinistic society that their cause warranted less attention. Sure, they were uneducated, abused, and denied any say in political policy, but at least they had a cozy parlor in which to do their knitting while the courageous radical men fought more pressing battles.
It is to be noted, however, that Frederick Douglass was the most prominent of men involved in the women’s movement –though he probably had little real competition for this honor- and I will grant, of course, that many women of the time weren’t exactly doing their part to change things, but I find it interesting to note that the attitudes these men held towards the women’s movement seemed to imply that if you had financial security and white skin, you could stand to be oppressed a little longer.

Posted by Claire E Boyte-White at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

We spent a lot of Thursday talking about it, and although this isn't my week, I don't want to let the subject go. There was a strong sentiment among some in the room that paternal relationship and patriarchy were defacto bad, and furthermore, evidence of racism. But I think this is far from plain to see. I thought Professor' Cotlar's point that in a normal, healthy conception of parternalism the ultimate goal is to foster independence. This is in sharp contrast to the patriarchy maintained by slave holders. It seems clear that there are cases where a paternalistic attitude is unhealthy or immoral, but that is not the only version that exists. Even in the case of John Brown's treatment of his own children, which would be considered abusive by modern standards, can not be seen as analogous to the dysfunctional version of paternalism.

But my real concern is the assumption that was being made by some that paternal relationship are always motivated by a sense of superiority and are in some way distructive to efforts of self improvement for a group of people. One may say that when John Brown reaches out in the manner he did it belies a belief that African Americans cannot succeed without the help of the white population. But this ignores the other variables in the equation. Perhaps we can justify a white man giving people a hand up by virtue of the fact that so many other white people were actively trying to hold them down.

I'd like to draw some modern comparisons to try and eek out whether charitable actions and offers of guidance or assistance always constitute a "paternalistic attitude" towards the group in question. Say I read an article about Darfur and am moved to donate my money and time to stop the violence and relieve the suffering. Would these actions constitute my taking a paternalistic attitude towards the people of Sudan? Is it implied by my charity that I feel the people of Sudan are incapable of sorting themselves out? What if I go to the SHE event against sexual violence Thursday night? Does this mean I think women so inferior that they need my participation in their defense? Or what about Katrina? Maybe Bush waited so long to send Federal aid to New Orleans because he was resisting the urge to infantilize the citizens of Louisiana. He wouldn't want to be seen as acting paternalistic when he didn't trust the city to save itself. These are all seemingly absurd conclusions, but they follow from the same error made if we judge John Brown so harshly based on a single quote.

Posted by Bradley A Grenz at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Radicalism and violence: do they go together. And why does it or does it not?
As I received the email from Professor Cotlar I started thinking about this topic.
We often refer to people as radicals if they use violence. Does this mean every person who uses violence is a radical?
And what is the difference between “good” violence and “bad” violence?
When I read about the food riots I could understand those people. They couldn't buy any food while the shop owner were just waiting for the prices to go up.
We tend to justify violence if it is morally good and in our eyes acceptable. On the other side we often condemn violence once it comes from a position that we don't understand or we don't support.
When the leaders of the thirteen colonies declared their independence from England they were seen to be good people fighting for a morally good cause and therefore violence is necessary. If you look at the same situation from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean it is a whole different thing. They saw rebells that started a revolution to gain independence. The same thing what the southern states did when they declared their independence from the union.
This shows me that often the perspective from which you look at a situation makes a huge difference when it comes to judge the situation.

This also shows me that you can be radical without using violence and that you can use violence and not be a radical.
Often people see themselves in a different light than others see them.
A very good example for a radical using no violence at all would probably be Ghandi. Fighting a whole system and helping his country on its way to freedom without using any violance.

Posted by Matthias Pongratz at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)