One part of a whole.

The progressive movement was one of movers and shakers, but also the everyday people who wanted a different path than those on offer at the time.  People who got involved really did come in from all walks of life.  The key groups involved for Stromquist are middle class and lower class (workers) (Stromquist pg 194, 196), and progressivism in Stromquist emerged from class conflict (Stromquist pg 194).  But we also have Flanagan whose key groups were Progressive men and women from the city clubs such as the City Club (largely middle class white men) and the Women’s City Club (often wives or relatives of City Club members, but also professional women) (Flanagan pg 1035), and progressivism was driven by both clubs, but primarily by the Women’s Club which was more concerned with reforms for the betterment of all (Flanagan pg 1050).   

The authors  may differ in which groups had bigger roles to play but I think that they are both correct in the groups they see as influential.  The progressive movement was pushed by people from all walks of life and both genders.  They all play a big part in the push to better conditions, they just come in from different angles.  The lower class men and women who worked the factories, or the street cars in Cleveland in Stromquist’s article, wanted better conditions; the middle class men and women involved in the Progressive movement saw the need and tried to improve the station of their neighbors and improve the areas they lived in as well.  Both class and gender pushed these groups to come at the problem from different perspectives but this helped the movement pick up speed and do so much more than just any one group alone.  Flanagan talks about how without the women getting involved and pushing first for municipal improvements, both for themselves and those less fortunate, things like, trash collecting and regulation to make milk safe to buy would not have occurred to the men in politics, or would have been at odds with the men’s primary focus on business and efficiency.  While the women, in Flanagan’s article, were focused on social issues, they believed that municipal issues had to be resolved before the city would be a good place to live which made them active in political issues as well (Flanagan 1045).  And while women drew from their home experience to focus on making sure everyone in the household was taken care of, the men drew from their business experience, looking to increase efficiency and profit (Flanagan 1046).

Now Stromquist believed that progressivism emerged from class conflict, and the working class was a driving force in it. (Stromquist 194)  I do not think that he is error in that these people had a great influence on the situation but I do not think they were the only influences.  Stromquist and Flanagan are likely both right, and wrong.   The greater acceptance of the women’s club in Flanagan (1047) is not incompatible with the participation of the lower classes mentioned in Stromquist (Stromquist 194). And as such the clubs that got involved were not the only voices involved either.  It is the combination of all these forces that truly made the movement what it became.

But we don't want the Irish!*

“Every dog (no distinction of color) has his day”  The caption of this political cartoon reads.  The cartoon, as many were in its era, is complex, with many references to the players of the day(1).  Here we see two men looking at the posters on a wall ranging from a bigoted threat by the KKK to editorials on booting out the Chinese above other posters calling for no Dutch or Irish.  The poster with the “go west” illustration chasing the Indians out is contrasted with a “go east” illustration of the Chinese chasing the Americans out, illustrating the fear the “Red gentleman” refers to; as the “Red gentleman” says to the “Yellow gentleman,” “Pale face ‘fraid you crowd him out, as he did me.”  This cartoon is talking about the hypocrisy of each wave of foreign invaders fearing the next, or even the racial groups in power fearing the others (as is suggested by the anti-Black KKK sign at the top)..  This is further emphasised to great effect by posters such as, “Foreigners not wanted” posted by Pat.Irish.Esq (a group of immigrants who many Americans did not appreciate the arrival of) or ‘“Knownothingism of the Past. “Down with the Irish.  Down with the Dutch.”’ Another sign appears to be a reference to Denis Kearney with "the Chinese must go,” as he was a well known advocate of the time against the rights of Chinese immigrants who he believed “robbed "Americans" of decent employment.”(2)  In the back, a black man waits for his time to come, perhaps playing into a widespread nervousness that free former slaves would somehow come to power that would endanger the power balance in America.  The “Lager Bier Government” may be a reference to German or Dutch immigrants, especially in light of the poster against both the Dutch and the Irish.  All of these groups brought their home country customs with them to America and were deemed a threat to the American way of life.

(1) Lecture 2
(2) "Denis Kearney." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Detroit: Gale, 1998. Gale Biography In Context. Web. 16 Feb. 2012.



* Quoted from the movie Blazing Saddles via IMDB.COM
Olson Johnson: All right... we'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don't want the Irish!
[everyone complains]
Olson Johnson: Aw, prairie shit... Everybody!
[everyone rejoices]






And I could not leave this one out either considering...
Jim: [consoling Bart] What did you expect? "Welcome, sonny"? "Make yourself at home"? "Marry my daughter"? You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. 


I love that movie.

Backwards, and in heels!

One of the biggest arguments throughout the history of any sort of rights would be that of who gets to enjoy the stated rights.  Back in the French Revolution, they argued over whether all men should enjoy rights, no matter what their wealth or status; they argued over whether those following a separate faith should obtain the same rights, or whether freemen and Blacks should enjoy rights, and then on top of that, they never even thought a woman could possibly merit rights.  The same arguments employed against religious minorities, non-whites, and women can still be seen today, though the context or reason may be different.  

Take, for instance, the right to marry.  Arguments against allowing marriages are that only those of a certain sexuality, race, age and sometimes religion can enjoy marriage.  Within the last millennium, many changes have been made as to who is and who isn’t allowed to marry, and what marriage entails.  The “appropriate” age to marry went up as our life spans increased.  The social stigma of an unmarried woman lessened, and women could wait longer and longer before they were considered old maids, no longer handed off in marriage at the first opportunity that would suit the family.  The whole lead up to marriage changed, and we went from drawn up agreements with a bride’s price and dowry to sometimes eloping in Vegas after one too many cocktails.  People of a different race couldn’t marry each other for the longest time, and those who could “pass” as their partner’s race would in order to marry.  Many faiths would only accept marriages of those who shared the same beliefs, and that is still sometimes an issue today.  At a Catholic church, for instance, they will only preform the marriage if both parties have been baptised, performed their first communions, and completed their conformations, and if either does not have the documentation, the Church will not marry you.  Arguably, the most heated topic of current marriage debate is whether same sex couple have the right to marry, and, again, many of the same arguments are made against gay marriage that have been made against granting rights to other socially disadvantaged minorities.  

Here we are, a few centuries later, still arguing over who gets to enjoy which rights.  And, if things continue on this vein, which is likely due to “human nature”, we will continue to find new ways to argue over who gets to enjoy “Human Rights,” how many, and which ones.

"Passing" grade for Equiano

As to the matter of Equiano’s place of origin, while many have questioned the veracity of his anecdotes as to place doubt on his place of origin; I do think there is a very good argument to be made for the truth in his origins being from Africa.  One of the strongest pieces of evidence for Equiano’s African origin being true is the fact that most people of his time preferred to claim that they were born in the new world; there is a strong likelihood that, while there is a possibility that he had a reason that is not immediately apparent to claim African origin when he had been born in South Carolina, he would be disinclined to claim African origin unless it was true and he was motivated by telling the truth of his story in order to end the slave trade, even if he could not clearly remember all of the precise details of his early origin.

It is a common situation throughout society’s history that the other will claim membership in the preferred class if at all possible.  For instance, non-white people, if light skinned enough, would do everything they could to “pass” for white to claim the social benefits of whiteness.  Even today, in the gay community, “passing” for straight is a common defense mechanism in order to claim the benefits of heterosexuality.

In Equiano’s time, it is unlikely that there would have been a social benefit, or even a benefit of greater believability as an author, in claiming African origin since African origin was looked down upon in his time and society.  These social tendencies also answer Carretta’s claim that the young Equiano told people he was born on a plantation in South Carolina; he very well might have told people that, but that would have been the lie.  When Carretta claims that Equiano had nothing to hide in his early life, he ignores the fact that a newly freed slave might have every reason to lie to improve his place in society and situation; he likely had less to lose in early life, and much more to lose by lying when he began to write with the goal of abolishing the slave trade. Carretta’s arguments appear to be based strongly on an assumption of what a freed slave, new slave, terrified child, and activist Black author would feel and do rather than on Equiano’s own narrative, which supports Equiano’s adult account of his origins.  

In the close reading of the text section (4), it is worth pointing out that, while some accounts of Africa and the passage of a new slave to America were likely “assisted” by oral histories and previously written works, Equiano would likely have seen them as an important part of the slave narrative, and thus, his narrative for a portion of his life in which trauma and young age prevented him from clearly remembering all the details.  Equiano’s autobiography is also an autobiography of slavery in general, in a way, which is appropriate for a time when many viewed slaves as utterly interchangeable.