Category: DB3

1. What do you see as the relationship between women’s movements and abolitionist movements?

From what I can see, the abolitionist movement and the women’s rights movement are similar in many ways. They both look to end inequality and mistreatment of specific groups of people; the main difference being the group of people and how they are being mistreated.

For the abolitionist movement, they are looking to end something inhumane such as treating a person as an object because of their skin color. This could be considered the worst out of the two since black men were sold off like animals to do hard work. They had no rights and many of them die for wanting freedom.

This isn’t to downplay the women’s movement as women also suffer a lot of mistreatment. They had no choice on whom to marry and they have to listen to their husbands no matter the circumstance. They had no influence on society and many of them could no work since men believed that women cannot do the same things as men.

All these factors resulted in the creation of these movements. Although they had different methods and ways to accomplish their goal, their overall message was the same; to end inequality and mistreatment so people can live without the worry of their life. Although we still see major problems even in today’s society, without these important movements, we would not have progressed to where we are today. We, as humans, should keep moving forward to create a better society.

The Abolition movement focused on giving laborers their freedom and also hope to end social discrimination and segregation between individuals such as white and black. While on the other hand, the Women’s movement fought to provide women the right to vote. The relationship I see between the women’s movement and abolitionist movements is that they both fight the unfairness they face in society hoping to make a change.

When Discuss the two versions of the speech by Sojourner Truth seems like they’re all connected in some way. The speech by Frances Gage expresses more feelings and sadness in the story. While on the other hand, the speech from Marius Robinson expresses desire and anger. These two speeches show us that there two different types of emoting we get from each of them.

A quote that stands out to me stated, “You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much, for we can not take more than our pint’ll hold.” This quote stands out to me because it says even if society decided to erase unfairness in the community women will be nowhere near a man.

Relationship between Women’s Movement and ich might have been denied to them. From all these movements what can be deduced is that the American people will always fight for their rights and that is what makes them very aggressive. Among the movements that have graced the USA include the Abolitionist movement and Women’s rights movement. The abolitionist movement had the objective of doing away with slavery whereas the Women’s rights movement wanted to end social oppression (DuBois, 2021). A look at them both it is understood that both were fighting for social inclusion of their various groups. Both movements wanted to grant members from their groups a better life that would include social inclusion. With slave trade continuing, the abolitionist movement wanted to grant the slaves freedom as well as end social discrimination that was being experienced between the whites and the blacks. On the other end, the women’s movement was fighting for them to have a right to vote as well as the lack of opportunities for women. 

Looking at the above what can be concluded is that both movements had the same objective of granting their members the right to freedom. While slaves were physically enslaved, women were socially enslaved. The Abolitionist movement can be said to have given the Women’s rights movement the power and will to fight. Women just like slaves did not have any right to divorce, own land, vote among many other rights that they were denied. The objectives of the movements brought them together in a bid to fight for freedoms (DuBois, 2021). The Women’s rights movement and the Abolitionist movement provided an opportunity to those who had been downtrodden and oppressed (both men and women) a chance and an opportunity to have a common goal and fight together for their basic rights. The two movements provided the platform for men and women to fight together so that they could be granted the rights that they had been denied.

Reference 

DuBois, E. C. (2021). Suffrage: Women’s Long Battle for the Vote. Simon & Schuster.

3. Pick a quote or two from one of the texts that spoke to you or that confused you. Describe and explain the quote(s) as best as you can and/or identify your questions about them.

Angelina Grimké’s reading “Appeal to Christian Women of the South, 1836” a quote that stood out to me was not because it used text that was not her writing. But in the way she interpreted he Declaration of Independence. Grimké tried her best to depict the reality of what it means to be an American “We must come back to the good old doctrine of our fore fathers who declared to the world,

“this self evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they have certain inalienable rights among which are,life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness”. It is even a greater absurdity to suppose a man can be legally born a slave under our free Republican Government,than under the petty despotisms of barbarian Africa. If then, we have no right to enslave an African, surely we can have none to enslave an American.”

Surely not in the United States is allowing slavery to occur when it is highlighted that all men that are born on this land is able to have all that rights of others.She also claimed that the children of slaves are technically American because they were born on American soil. In the other reading by Ida B. Wells in 1895 it shocked me to read specifically that the white “masters” of the slaves would decide that corporal punishment was a good way to punish and devalue them in order for them to do more dirty work.

“But emancipation came and the vested interests of the white man in the Negros body were lost. The white man had no right to scourge the emancipated Negro, still less has a right to kill him… In slave time the Negro was kept subservient and submissive by the frequency and severity of the scourging, but with freedom, a new system of intimidation came into Vogue; the Negro was not only whipped and scourged; he was killed”.

When I re read what their tactic was in order to get away with abusing another human being, it infuriated me even more. Whites would manipulate the situation and would not kill slaves before the emancipation because it meant it would be a financial loss.

Overall slavery was not accepted by everyone. Many people fought to see justice occur in this messed up system. This is deeply rooted and racism is still severe as back then. There are laws that are set up now to stop the discrimination in school and in the work place. In my opinion I think it’s so pathetic that we need to have laws in order not to discriminate others because it should be in everyone to treat each other correctly. Sadly it is not that way and there are all these laws in order to protect the minorities.

No matter how heinous the act of the lynchers may have been, it was discussed only for a day or so and then dismissed from the attention of the public. In one or two instances the governor has called attention to the crime, but the civil processes entirely failed to bring the murderers to justice.

Seem familiar? The things that stood out the most to me about this week’s readings is how they ring true not only in the context of the abolitionist movement, but in today’s society. How many times in the past year, two years, five years have we seen people attacked and murdered for the color of their skin? We rarely see the victims of these crimes meet the light of justice. In that sense, Ida B. Wells’ “A Red Record” reads like a piece that could be published today. Wells speaks of many things, but very simply states at the end that “we do insist that the punishment is not the same for both classes of criminals.” In fact, she gives three excuses made up by white men to justify the tens of thousands of lynchings that took place in the decades following the Emancipation.

• Repression of and stamping out race riots
• Maintaining a “white man’s government”
• Vengeance for crimes against women

These three excuses once again feel eerily close to the views of what we would today consider the political far-right – and yet, in the 1800’s and today have no basis or evidence to support them.

I’d like to end on a slightly more humorous note: In Sojourner Truth’s 1851 speech, she literally implies that God and woman created and bore Jesus, so what was the man’s part? I feel this way a lot in my everyday life and hope you maybe all giggled too.

Discuss the two versions of the speech by Sojourner Truth. What do we see when we compare the two versions? What can this show us about the context of that time?

The two versions of Truth’s speech, while conveying the same/a similar message, reflect wildly different voices. When we look at similarities between the original transcribed method and the one later published, key points made are used verbatim while also including embellished language. For example, Robinsons account reads as “if women have a pint and man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full?” while Gage’s reads as “If my cup won’t hold but a pint and yourn holds a quart, wouldn’t ye be mean not to let me have a little half-measure full?“

It took me a minute to notice what happened to the speech beyond just the voice being changed. When you read Robinsons version, the speech is predominantly addressing women’s rights with undertones regarding slavery, however, when you read Gage’s version it directly addresses women’s rights and slavery. Again, Robinsons version (which is regarded as the closest to accurate version) absolutely touches on slavery, but I feel that Gage goes out of the way to be sure both issues are represented.

I feel that what we see is Gage painting Truth to fit the narrative of what America imagined (or perhaps wanted to imagine) when addressing slavery, changing Truth’s voice to emphasize the abolitionist aspect of the women’s rights movement.

On a personal note, I believe that regardless of the intention being non-malicious and reportedly effective in it’s agenda to highlight both issues, it is nonetheless reductionist, a caricature, and ultimately unethical.

What do you see as the relationship between women’s movement and abolitionist movements?

when it comes to women’s movement its means they want to start and end something. The women’s movement is mainly about women fighting to have the same rights as men, voting , equal pay and etc. women wanted to stop the discrimination towards them because they are women and won’t be able to do the same things as men.

when it comes to abolitionist movements its more about ending something yet starting something new such as the women’s movement. for example African Americans made a movement to end slavery , so they can start a life so they can be free.

Even though these movements topics are different they couldn’t be any different . both movements fight for the same things equal rights , social equality and to stop discrimination based on who they are.

What do you see as the relationship between women’s movements and abolitionist movements? While I was reading and doing research about the topic, I found that the relationship between the Abolitionist and Women’s Rights Movement is that both movements reinforced one another. Becoming an abolitionist enabled women to speak in public and to criticize the institutions of American society that denied them. Moreover, The Second Great Awakening discussed women as moral reformers of family and society. Over time, women reformers realized that they lacked many of the same rights that they were seeking for others, and began to work for expanded rights. Women’s rights and freedoms were severely limited in the 1800s. They could not own property, rarely received a formal education, could not vote, and they could not hold office. 

Sojourner Truth’s Speech was written and delivered by two very different individuals that both become just as popular as the other. Marius Robinson was able to transcribe Truth’s Speech during the Woman’s Right Convention while he was in the audience whereas Frances Gage, a African American women, made an inaccurate version of her speech many years later. What is interesting about these two individuals is that they are complete opposite races and genders. One is white and male and the other is black and female. With that being said, both give a feel and background of how different their perspective’s are towards Truth’s speech.

When reading through both speeches it is apparent where similarities lie between Robinson and Gage. In Gage’s version she speaks with a great deal of slang and improper grammar. If you compared that with Robinson’s version you can tell there is an educational gap between the two. It is evident to say that Robinson and Truth had a higher quality and/or opportunity at a better education than Gage. Right off the bat Gage starts off her version with improper words and grammar: “Well, chillen, whar dar’s so much racket dar must be som’ting out o’kilter. I tink dat, ‘twixt de niggers of de South and de women at de Norf, all a-talking ’bout rights, de white men will be in a fix pretty soon” (Gage). Although her words are choppy her passion is just as strong as Truth’s and we can see that throughout her version of the speech. She includes her own story within her inaccurate transcription by adding in her narrative, “I have borne thirteen chillen, and seen ’em mos’ all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard” (Gage). She includes this piece of her life into her speech to emphasizes her point that even though she works as much and as hard as any man, she will still be seen as less than because of her gender.

Like in Robinson’s version, Truth also feels the same connection as Gage does with her and many other individuals. In the beginning of both speeches, they start off the same with a similar foundation: “If women have a pint and man a quart – why can’t she have her little pint full?” (Robinson) and “If my cup won’t hold but a pint and yourn holds a quart, wouldn’t ye be mean not to let me have a little half-measure full?” (Gage). In these two lines we see how they both take from Truth’s speech but Gage adds her twist to it because of how she was raised and her lack of education. Both statements come across the same way but it is clear to say that Gage lacks proper grammar.

Although these two version of Truth’s speech are very similar with one another, each hold their own meaning behind them because of the person depicting the speech. You can even say that even after 12 years later, women’s rights continued to happen. Gage and Robinson’s version go hand in hand with one another because of how different they are. Even though they were delivered by two completely different individuals, the same point comes across in both versions.

After reading some of the passages for this week (but in particular the Susan B. Anthony Speech Text) I was astounded by how similar the words used between the struggle for abolition and that for suffrage are. In 1873, women understood that neither all men nor women can be equal until black, Native, and anything in between men and women are. I think it is so refreshing to know that this consensus existed in the 19th century, that the regard for human life and democracy isn’t a contemporary phenomenon. Anthony makes the point clear when she states that “It was we the people- not we white male citizens- nor yet we male citizens”. She is literally pointing each injustice that existed at the time, that currently exists, and where we can begin to start achieving true exercise of the rights our “fathers” constituted for this country in 1787. Therefore, the words of this woman, as well as the words of Angelina Grimke (whose use of verses is the first time I have ever been on board with utilizing the Bible to make a point) are advocating for freedom.

These suffragettes recognize that the pursuit of liberation must be intersectional, because there is more than one group of citizens being denied their rights; women their right to vote, and black Americans the right to own property, exist autonomously, the list goes on. Anthony time and time again illustrates with concise language and full clarity, the ultimate and only role of a government to its people. It is not to decide nor allow rights for individuals, but to establish and ordain these “God-given” and unalienable rights. It is to “secure the people in the enjoyment” of these exact rights, which are again, not to be decided by a government. And in reference to the same constitution that establishes these rights to its citizens, “there is no provision in that document that can be fairly construed into a permission to the states to deprive any class of their citizens of their rights to vote.”

The point being, that the arguments presented by these women may be applied to the struggle of any marginalized group or minority that is a citizen of the United States. This is to be applied to the freed slaves who suddenly had autonomy yet lacked the ability to read or write about said autonomy, as well as it can be applied to the literate white women who understood their rights in this country as a citizen of it, but lacked the autonomy to exercise them. Taxation without representation is tyranny, and both of these aforementioned groups were expected to pay this government.