Recommended Posts

The meaning of the term "Progressives" came up on a recent thread. See for a post by MSK on the subject.

Here's a brief history (by Tim Leonard) of the origins of Progressivism in the US, from a post by F. L. Light on SOLO:

link

Founded in 1885

Submitted by F L Light on Fri, 2013-12-27 23:34

When the American Economic Association was formed in 1885, 23 of the fifty five members were protestant clergymen.

Tim Leonard writes, a short excerpt from his powerpoint work:

www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Excluding.ppt‎

"A key formative experience of the AEAs core group graduate education in Germany.

Bismarkian Germany gave the young Americans exposure to the ideas of the German Historical School, with its positive view of state economic intervention, and its hostility to the idea of natural economic laws, what it disparaged as "English" economics.

Their German university professors, men like Adolph Wagner, Johannes Conrad and Gustav Schmoller were, moreover, accorded respect and authority and they were consulted on important matters of national economic policy.

The example of their German professors permitted the young American graduate students to imagine careers as yet non-existent in the United States - academic advocates with expert influence upon economic policy.

The young American economists' experience in Germany gave shape and direction, however, to a reform impulse already strong in them.

The progressive economists' desire to set the world to rights was powered by a quintessentially American phenomenon, an evangelical Protestant reform movement known as social Christianity, or the social Gospel."

They opposed the Mengerian economists of laissez-faire profession.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ellen. Ars Technica had an article from Wired UK about

Scientific Method

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed
by WIRED UK

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

The hundreds of comments were predictably barbs back and forth about who pays for what and so what about it. I mention this because the article above asserts that a coterie of progressives planned to take over the world... and here we are in their grasp. So, why did so many other competing groups fail? I looked at "anti-vivisection" and "Vegetarian Party" for instance. Why did the Mengerian school fail to ignite the passions of capitalists? (If, indeed, that is what happened.)

By contrast and comparison, several "periodic table of elements" have been designed. We all mostly use the same old one. In geography, we know (now) that political control goes to those who make the maps: Greenland is only about the size of Mexico but is always made much larger because the common projection served those who live and travel East and West at 40-North. And how did the Dvorak keyboard fail when it is a better way?

Over on Galt's Gulch Online one of the Donways posted a link to his brother's talk to the Atlas Society blaming those liberal Protestants who were sociology professors - without actual degrees in sociology - who created the (ahem) "fiction" of white collar crime in their quest to destroy capitalism.

I accept what you provided from SOLO, that a bloc of liberal Protestants were motivated to take over the world. Mostly, it just gave me a lot to think about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ellen. Ars Technica had an article from Wired UK about

Scientific Method

Billion-dollar climate denial network exposed

by WIRED UK

An extensive study into the financial networks that support groups denying the science behind climate change and opposing political action has found a vast, secretive web of think tanks and industry associations, bankrolled by conservative billionaires.

Oh, grrr, grrr, grrr.

Note: "denying the science behind climate change." As if anyone denies that climate changes. What's meant is "denying" that humans are causing climate troubles - of some sort, the sort being changeable.

And note the denialist ploy. I.e., there's truth (human-caused climate troubles), and there are those who deny this truth.

Michael, I'm not sure how to interpret this in your comments:

I mention this because the article above asserts that a coterie of progressives planned to take over the world... and here we are in their grasp.

Are you thinking that "climate denialists" are "progressives"? The opposite is the case. The climate scam is a big darling of the progressives.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting how people label themselves. The term "progressive" doesn't tell us anything about what "progressives" stand for, but only tells us their positive evaluation of their own ideology. It's like naming yourself the "Totally awesome and cool party that's in favor of goodness and opposed to evil." It's as if they know that identifying what they are is a bad idea.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a bit about state education and Bismarck, also something about John Dewey's role. This is from an interview with Brett Veinotte, posted on the Lew Rockwell site. I found this while looking for an article I read several years ago and thought I'd saved but couldn't locate in my files. Still looking.

link

Daily Bell: When did public schools get their start in Germany?

Brett Veinotte: While there are sparse examples of compulsory schooling going all the way back to ancient Greece, the pre-German-Unification Kingdom of Prussia is probably the most significant step. However, the system in Prussia was simply a new method of perpetuating a practice that was already thousands of years old, and that was the science of turning human beings into controllable and predictable resources. In Prussia, the goals were militaristic; the rulers and elites wanted a reliable fighting force, with soldiers who wouldnt be made less efficient by annoying habits like the exercises of volition and self-preservation.

Daily Bell: Tell us more about the Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck.

Brett Veinotte: Bismarck was a Prussian aristocrat, credited with masterminding the German Unification under Prussian rule in the latter half of the 1800s. He was like a brilliant chess player; he thought way ahead. However, like Hitler many generations later, he was able utilize an already existing momentum of German thought to ultimately achieve his goals.

Key to Bismarcks plan was a popular embrace of nationalism and a strong ethnic identity. At the time Bismarck began to implement his plans, the schools had been building that momentum for at least two generations. The success of his "Blood and Iron" speech speaks to the impact the schools were already having. In this speech, he criticized the ideas of diplomacy and multilateral decision-making, and argued instead for concentrated power and military aggression. And the people, who were ultimately the victims of this agenda, happily embraced it.

Daily Bell: Didnt he plan for Gymnasiums to educate children by grade to bond them for eventual warfare?

Brett Veinotte: Yes. And this is the genesis of the age-based sorting system we still see in schools today. Like I said, he thought way ahead.

Daily Bell: How did Bismarcks horrid system expand around the world?

Brett Veinotte: The Prussian system was imported to the United States in the mid-19th century by a Massachusetts politician named Horace Mann. He praised the system for its efficiency and regimentation but he was also forced to acknowledge the abusive nature of the Prussian model. Amazingly, he simply dismissed this concern by claiming that such a control structure could be used for good ("the perpetuation of republican institutions") in the United States.

Daily Bell: Didnt it get a foothold in America because of Irish prejudice?

Brett Veinotte: As early as the 1860s it was a factor. It was no coincidence that a system formed in Prussia to instill a sense of ethnic superiority and the mystical idea of nationalism would have the same effect in the United States.

Catholics and immigrants were big targets. There was a strong xenophobic desire to stamp out diversity in general, and the school system was even embraced by the KKK for that potential molding function.

From Massachusetts, it expanded quickly around the country. As a simple and general rule, when one government observes another devising a clever and subtle new way to control its subjects, the observer will imitate the doer.

Daily Bell: Give us some insight into John Dewey. What was his impact on modern education?

Brett Veinotte: Dewey was a so-called educational reformer who came along roughly two generations after the systems implementation. In retrospect, we could say that Deweys reform was actually an acceleration of the existing systems worst features. In a nutshell, Dewey asserted that an individuals mind was essentially property of the larger society.

I believe that he believed he had the best of intentions but the actual results of his ideas were monstrous. Dewey believed in the eventual emergence of what he might have called a humanistic society based on the principle of interdependence. Or state socialism, if you strip out all the euphemisms.

While Dewey helped introduce the look-say method of teaching literacy, or teaching illiteracy if again we strip out the euphemisms, that was not his most significant contribution. Dewey seemed to understand that the schools were a profound power for indoctrination in nationalism and ethnic superiority, and he wanted to use this power for an even greater good: the inculcation of collectivism. And to achieve this, individualism had to be significantly downgraded.

John Dewey was all about the greater good. That sounds nice. But what is it, who decides it and how many smaller goods should be sacrificed to achieve or maintain it? He once wrote: "Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth." [....]

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the article by John Taylor Gatto, excerpted here, is the one I was looking for.

The link is to a piece called "ARE OUR 'SCHOOLS' CONCENTRATION CAMPUSES FOR MIND DESTRUCTION?"

Rand's "The Comprachicos" is mentioned toward the end.

[The insert, including the typo, is in the original.]

According to an article by John Taylor Gatto published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on June 13, 1993 under the title "The Public School Nightmare," the American state education system [infact, all "compulsory education" systems of other countries also] was copied from the Prussian 19th century system with the objective to produce:

"1) Obedient soldiers to the army;

2) Obedient workers to the mines;

3) Well subordinated civil servants to government;

4) Well subordinated clerks to industry;

5) Citizens who thought alike about major issues.

...You need to know this because over the first 50 years of our school institution Prussian purpose - which was to create a form of state socialism - gradually forced out traditional American purpose, which in most minds was to prepare the individual to be self-reliant.

It's important to note that the underlying premise of Prussian schooling is that the government is the true parent of children - the State is sovereign over the family. At the most extreme pole of this notion is the idea that biological parents are really the enemies of their own children, not to be trusted. [....]

How did a Prussian system of dumbing children down take hold in American schools? ...Virtually every single one of the founders of American schooling had made the pilgrimage to Germany, and many of these men wrote widely circulated reports praising the Teutonic methods. Horace Mann's famous "7th Report" of 1844, still available in large libraries, was perhaps the most important of these.

By 1889, a little more than 100 years ago, the crop was ready for harvest. In that year the U.S. Commissioner of Education, William Torrey Harris, assured a railroad magnate, Collis Huntington, that American schools were "scientifically designed" to prevent "over-education" from happening. The average American would be content with his humble role in life, said the commissioner, because he would not be tempted to think about any other role. My guess is that Harris meant he would not be able to think about any other role.

In 1896 the famous John Dewey, then at the University of Chicago, said that independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future. In modern society, said Dewey, people would be defined by their associations - the groups they belonged to - not by their own individual accomplishments. In such a world people who read too well or too early are dangerous because they become privately empowered, they know too much, and know how to find out what they don't know by themselves, without consulting experts.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the John Taylor Gatto article excerpted above is the one I was trying to find.

The Public School Nightmare

direct link

Additional excerpt:

Once you think that the control of conduct is what schools are about, the word "reform" takes on a very particular meaning. It means making adjustments to the machine so that young subjects will not twist and turn so, while their minds and bodies are being scientifically controlled. Helping kids to use their minds better is beside the point. Bertrand Russell once observed that American schooling was among the most radical experiments in human history, that America was deliberately denying its children the tools of critical thinking. When you want to teach children to think, you begin by treating them seriously when they are little, giving them responsibilities, talking to them candidly, providing privacy and solitude for them, and making them readers and thinkers of significant thoughts from the beginning. That's if you want to teach them to think.

There is no evidence that this has been a State purpose since the start of compulsion schooling. When Frederich Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten in 19th century Germany, fashioned his idea he did not have a "garden for children" in mind, but a metaphor of teachers as gardeners and children as the vegetables. Kindergarten was created to be a way to break the influence of mothers on their children. I note with interest the growth of daycare in the US and the repeated urgings to extend school downward to include 4-year-olds.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, I'm not sure how to interpret this in your comments:

I mention this because the article above asserts that a coterie of progressives planned to take over the world... and here we are in their grasp.

Are you thinking that "climate denialists" are "progressives"? The opposite is the case. The climate scam is a big darling of the progressives.

Ellen

What I mean is that here we have an alleged multi-billion dollar capitalist ruling class conspiracy to deny global warming, but everyone still accepts global warming. Why is that?

I mean that by this same measure, how did a handful of Protestant ministers take over the world? I am aware of Horace Mann's mission and his report. But no one was forced to follow it. At that same time, new states were coming into the Union with new contexts. At any point, any state or local school system was always free to do whatever they wanted. Moreover, also not explained is why public education succeeded, if the free market is superior. Robert Fulton put his Claremont in the harbor well and fine, then wanted a monopoly... which Cornelius Vanderbilt broke... Telegraph to telephone to television, monopolies lose to the free market (eventually).

I am just saying that public education was perceived like public police, public fire, and ultimately public water and sewer, public parks, public streets and roads... But private enterprise in just about everything else.

I grew up in Cleveland. We had progressive education as understood by Wikipedia:

Most progressive education programs have these qualities in common:

  • Emphasis on learning by doing – hands-on projects, expeditionary learning, experiential learning
  • Integrated curriculum focused on thematic units
  • Integration of entrepreneurship in to education
  • Strong emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking
  • Group work and development of social skills
  • Understanding and action as the goals of learning as opposed to rote knowledge
  • Collaborative and cooperative learning projects
  • Education for social responsibility and democracy
  • Highly personalized education accounting for each individual's personal goals
  • Integration of community service and service learning projects into the daily curriculum
  • Selection of subject content by looking forward to ask what skills will be needed in future society
  • De-emphasis on textbooks in favor of varied learning resources
  • Emphasis on lifelong learning and social skills
  • Assessment by evaluation of child’s projects and productions

We actually had two competing theories of "progressive" education: the elitists and the democrats. Both wanted to make us in their own image. Mostly, we did what we wanted, especially in high school. Look: millions of copies of Ayn Rand's works were sold to teens and college students. How did that happen if we were all brainwashed?

Today, I saw Gravity with a friend and explained orbital dynamics to her. How did I achieve that if I had been brainwashed?

I agree 100% that lots of people want to control the world and many apparently do. I deny the direct causal link between These Guys From 1900 Whom We Hate and The Sad State of Our Suffering Today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is that here we have an alleged multi-billion dollar capitalist ruling class conspiracy to deny global warming, but everyone still accepts global warming. Why is that?

Michael,

You mean like Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, Tom Steyer, Al Gore, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison and Peter Lewis?

Hmmmmmm?

:)

I got that with one hand tied behind my back on a Google search. There's a crap-load more liberal billionaires out there who support climate change legislation--and they stand to make even more money on carbon exchanges if the laws pass.

Of course, I don't use the left-leaning mainstream media that has bought into global warming as my main source of conspiracy theories...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is that here we have an alleged multi-billion dollar capitalist ruling class conspiracy to deny global warming, but everyone still accepts global warming. Why is that?

I see. First, who are the "everyone" you mean? Loads of people think it's a crock. Others are puzzled and don't know what to make of the situation, but they're told that scientific organizations say that there is global warming and they think that they wouldn't be being lied to by those organizations. (Scientists themselves, ones who aren't in a climate-related area, can be especially hard to convince that they're being lied to, since they have the default expectation of honesty from their colleagues.)

Second, the "alleged multi-billion dollar capitalist ruling class conspiracy" is only alleged, whereas the multi-trillion dollar anti-capitalist "conspiracy" (more accurately, coalition of interests) is real.

I mean that by this same measure, how did a handful of Protestant ministers take over the world?

I don't see that anyone said they did. The articles are talking about the history of state-controlled education. Things start somewhere.

I am aware of Horace Mann's mission and his report. But no one was forced to follow it. At that same time, new states were coming into the Union with new contexts. At any point, any state or local school system was always free to do whatever they wanted.

Not and get federal funding.

Moreover, also not explained is why public education succeeded, if the free market is superior.

Succeeded at what? It's succeeded at producing increasingly poorly educated students.

I grew up in Cleveland. We had progressive education as understood by Wikipedia:

Most progressive education programs have these qualities in common:

  • Emphasis on learning by doing hands-on projects, expeditionary learning, experiential learning
  • Integrated curriculum focused on thematic units
  • Integration of entrepreneurship in to education
  • Strong emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking
  • Group work and development of social skills
  • Understanding and action as the goals of learning as opposed to rote knowledge
  • Collaborative and cooperative learning projects
  • Education for social responsibility and democracy
  • Highly personalized education accounting for each individual's personal goals
  • Integration of community service and service learning projects into the daily curriculum
  • Selection of subject content by looking forward to ask what skills will be needed in future society
  • De-emphasis on textbooks in favor of varied learning resources
  • Emphasis on lifelong learning and social skills
  • Assessment by evaluation of childs projects and productions

Do you applaud that list? I think it's awful. (Some of the particular items might sound ok taken on their own, but the list is in a code language which adds up to bad.)

We actually had two competing theories of "progressive" education: the elitists and the democrats. Both wanted to make us in their own image.

There were competing theories, maybe still are. Advocates of "progressive" education aren't and haven't been all unified in what they want the progress to be.

Mostly, we did what we wanted, especially in high school. Look: millions of copies of Ayn Rand's works were sold to teens and college students. How did that happen if we were all brainwashed?

Today, I saw Gravity with a friend and explained orbital dynamics to her. How did I achieve that if I had been brainwashed?

You come from an older generation where education generally in the US was better than it is today. Some places it was even excellent. (I happened to be fortunate myself in that the schools I attended were excellent - in Peoria, Illinois, a town that wouldn't be selected as a likely candidate for sterling educational quality.)

There are students even today who do well because they're motivated and find ways on their own - but they have a slog to find them despite the school system.

I agree 100% that lots of people want to control the world and many apparently do. I deny the direct causal link between These Guys From 1900 Whom We Hate and The Sad State of Our Suffering Today.

Again, there isn't a claim being made of a "direct causal link," except in that a development starts somewhere.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

By 1889, a little more than 100 years ago, the crop was ready for harvest. In that year the U.S. Commissioner of Education, William Torrey Harris, assured a railroad magnate, Collis Huntington, that American schools were "scientifically designed" to prevent "over-education" from happening. The average American would be content with his humble role in life, said the commissioner, because he would not be tempted to think about any other role. My guess is that Harris meant he would not be able to think about any other role.

In 1896 the famous John Dewey, then at the University of Chicago, said that independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future. In modern society, said Dewey, people would be defined by their associations - the groups they belonged to - not by their own individual accomplishments. In such a world people who read too well or too early are dangerous because they become privately empowered, they know too much, and know how to find out what they don't know by themselves, without consulting experts.

Ellen

Excellent research on Dewey. One of my personal most evil man in the last 200 years.

I used to start public school board meetings with Dewey quotes to allow parents and citizens to at least be aware that this man was the same person who trained the folks that were ruining children's minds.

Thanks.

A...

Post Script:

His unpublished and now lost dissertation was titled "The Psychology of Kant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey

His Wiki is quite revealing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of two views about the origins of Progressivism:

  • Historicism, which the quoted article mentioned.
  • The Christian social gospel movement.
The Progressive Era sort of fascinates me and there are some Progressives that I do like. Louis Brandeis is one of them. Woody Wilson, on the other hand, was a scumbag. The quote of his in my signature is meant for irony.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of two views about the origins of Progressivism:

  • Historicism, which the quoted article mentioned.
  • The Christian social gospel movement.

Um. See, from "the quoted article" from the opening post:

link

Founded in 1885

Submitted by F L Light on Fri, 2013-12-27 23:34

Tim Leonard writes, a short excerpt from his powerpoint work:

www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Excluding.ppt‎

[....]

The progressive economists' desire to set the world to rights was powered by a quintessentially American phenomenon, an evangelical Protestant reform movement known as social Christianity, or the social Gospel."

[....]

The Progressive Era sort of fascinates me and there are some Progressives that I do like. Louis Brandeis is one of them. Woody Wilson, on the other hand, was a scumbag. The quote of his in my signature is meant for irony.

I wondered why you use a quote from Wilson. I don't think ironic intent is obvious, and I wondered if you admire Wilson for some reason.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of two views about the origins of Progressivism:

  • Historicism, which the quoted article mentioned.
  • The Christian social gospel movement.

Um. See, from "the quoted article" from the opening post:

link

Founded in 1885

Submitted by F L Light on Fri, 2013-12-27 23:34

Tim Leonard writes, a short excerpt from his powerpoint work:

www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/Excluding.ppt‎

[....]

The progressive economists' desire to set the world to rights was powered by a quintessentially American phenomenon, an evangelical Protestant reform movement known as social Christianity, or the social Gospel."

[....]

D'oh! My bad. I didn't catch that part.

The Progressive Era sort of fascinates me and there are some Progressives that I do like. Louis Brandeis is one of them. Woody Wilson, on the other hand, was a scumbag. The quote of his in my signature is meant for irony.

I wondered why you use a quote from Wilson. I don't think ironic intent is obvious, and I wondered if you admire Wilson for some reason.

Ellen

Given what I know about Wilson--crass elitism, racism that was much for even his day, coercive sterilization, the draft, squashing WWI dissent--there is no way I can like that man. The only thing that I think he can be commended for is the League of Nations. The content of the quote I like, which was my main reason for it, but using it knowing that it was he who said that was meant to be subtle. I might find him an interesting topic for discussion, but not likeable. As I mentioned, Louis Brandeis is someone I have a high opinion of, primarily for his views on free speech, privacy, and telling FDR to essentially shove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider Woodrow Wilson a true American disaster. He was so fixated on his League of Nations that he allowed himself to be coerced into joining Britain and France making demons of the German nation and people. If Wilson had any sense a more just and constructive Treaty of Versailles might have led the Germans be into constructive engagement with both France and Britain and might possibly have avoided the disaster of World War II. Woodrow Wilson for all his academic reputation was a bigot and a horse's ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Given what I know about Wilson--crass elitism, racism that was much for even his day, coercive sterilization, the draft, squashing WWI dissent-

There's more...

During the beginning of the 20th century, as women's suffrage faced several important federal votes, a portion of the suffrage movement known as the National Women's Party led by suffragist Alice Paul became the first "cause" to picket outside the White House. Paul and Lucy Burns led a series of protests against the Wilson Administration in Washington. Wilson ignored the protests for six months, but on June 20, 1917, as a Russian delegation drove up to the White House, suffragists unfurled a banner which stated: "We women of America tell you that America is not a democracy. Twenty million women are denied the right to vote. President Wilson is the chief opponent of their national enfranchisement".[101] Another banner on August 14, 1917, referred to "Kaiser Wilson" and compared the plight of the German people with that of American women. With this manner of protest, the women were subject to arrests and many were jailed.[102] On October 17, Alice Paul was sentenced to seven months and on October 30 began a hunger strike, but after a few days prison authorities began to force feed her.[101] After years of opposition, Wilson changed his position in 1918 to advocate women's suffrage as a war measure.[103]

220px-Official_program_-_Woman_suffrage_
magnify-clip.png

Program for Woman Suffrage Procession, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1913

lossy-page1-220px-Suffragette_banner._On
magnify-clip.png
"Kaiser Wilson" banner held by a woman who picketed the White House
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a nation where the posted speed limit is accepted as a benchmark of opportunity, it is hard to argue that people are forced into things they do not understand. Progressivism, liberalism, Christian social gospel, fast food, high fructose corn syrup, nuclear power, sports stadiums, and pre-made ragged clothing all resonated with the self-defined expectations of large numbers of people.

So do the things and ideas that we tout find consonance with others just as we found them to our liking, despite have been raised in the same culture that produced Hillary Rodham and Michael Moore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider Woodrow Wilson a true American disaster. He was so fixated on his League of Nations that he allowed himself to be coerced into joining Britain and France making demons of the German nation and people. If Wilson had any sense a more just and constructive Treaty of Versailles might have led the Germans be into constructive engagement with both France and Britain and might possibly have avoided the disaster of World War II. Woodrow Wilson for all his academic reputation was a bigot and a horse's ass.

He really, really mucked up Europe when he got us into that conflict (World War I). It's quite possible that we could've avoided the creation of Lenin's Soviet Union, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given what I know about Wilson--crass elitism, racism that was much for even his day, coercive sterilization, the draft, squashing WWI dissent-

There's more...

During the beginning of the 20th century, as women's suffrage faced several important federal votes, a portion of the suffrage movement known as the National Women's Party led by suffragist Alice Paul became the first "cause" to picket outside the White House. Paul and Lucy Burns led a series of protests against the Wilson Administration in Washington. Wilson ignored the protests for six months, but on June 20, 1917, as a Russian delegation drove up to the White House, suffragists unfurled a banner which stated: "We women of America tell you that America is not a democracy. Twenty million women are denied the right to vote. President Wilson is the chief opponent of their national enfranchisement".%5B101%5D Another banner on August 14, 1917, referred to "Kaiser Wilson" and compared the plight of the German people with that of American women. With this manner of protest, the women were subject to arrests and many were jailed.%5B102%5D On October 17, Alice Paul was sentenced to seven months and on October 30 began a hunger strike, but after a few days prison authorities began to force feed her.%5B101%5D After years of opposition, Wilson changed his position in 1918 to advocate women's suffrage as a war measure.%5B103%5D

220px-Official_program_-_Woman_suffrage_

magnify-clip.png

Program for Woman Suffrage Procession, Washington, D.C., March 3, 1913

lossy-page1-220px-Suffragette_banner._On

magnify-clip.png

"Kaiser Wilson" banner held by a woman who picketed the White House

"Kaiser Wilson"! I love it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a class in Modern Europe, I wrote about Women's Suffrage. I can retrieve my citations; they are on my PC; I am writing on my Mac now. Just to say:

1. Women began voting in local elections in the UK and USA in the 1830s. In both cases, these were local elections in which property owners voted for taxes for local institutions. In the USA, it was school boards in Kentucky.

2. Women had property rights (even in Muslim societies) for thousands of years before they could vote.

The "Morgantine marriage" is one where the bride can keep the brideprice if she leaves the marriage after consummating it. (Morgen = morning in German, i.e,. morning after - "Didn't enjoy that. Sorry. Bye.")

I have a bond certificate from 1880 for a Glasgow city railway, payable in gold, to a woman under her own name in her own right... 40 years before she could vote in a national election.

It is a an error of "progressive" thinking to only see politics. That error permeates much discussion here, also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a class in Modern Europe, I wrote about Women's Suffrage. I can retrieve my citations; they are on my PC; I am writing on my Mac now. Just to say:

1. Women began voting in local elections in the UK and USA in the 1830s. In both cases, these were local elections in which property owners voted for taxes for local institutions. In the USA, it was school boards in Kentucky.

2. Women had property rights (even in Muslim societies) for thousands of years before they could vote.

The "Morgantine marriage" is one where the bride can keep the brideprice if she leaves the marriage after consummating it. (Morgen = morning in German, i.e,. morning after - "Didn't enjoy that. Sorry. Bye.")

I have a bond certificate from 1880 for a Glasgow city railway, payable in gold, to a woman under her own name in her own right... 40 years before she could vote in a national election.

It is a an error of "progressive" thinking to only see politics. That error permeates much discussion here, also.

That is true. For example, Iran is ahead of Saudia Arabia when it comes to the status of women in society. When it comes to gays, well, neither are good in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen, yes, contrary but not contradictory. It is true that the political franchise is important. The marketplace (including the marketplace for ideas) is more powerful, more equitable, more dynamic. Despite male dominance, women have worked as mathematicians and astronomers. But you could not just show up to the Senate and take a seat. That said, also, note that in the 1860s women worked as LOBBYISTS. I can find a citation for that. That would be the market for politics, if you will. You could not hold office, not even vote, but you could influence legislation nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen, yes, contrary but not contradictory. It is true that the political franchise is important. The marketplace (including the marketplace for ideas) is more powerful, more equitable, more dynamic.

I don't see the material Adam quoted in post #16 as even contrary to your assessment of relative importance. The quoted excerpt is simply a factual description, not an argument. Seems to me you're reading into material posted on this thread things that aren't being said and then arguing against positions which haven't been advocated. I wonder, if you think some thesis is being propounded, could you say what you think that thesis is? I have the feeling of talking at intangible cross-purposes against a presumed subtext which I can't identify.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have the feeling of talking at intangible cross-purposes against a presumed subtext which I can't identify.

Ellen

OMG! Greg's taken over his mind...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now