Columbia University historian Eric Foner, author of numerous books and perhaps the country’s leading authority on the Reconstruction period that followed the Civil War, explained in a recent article in The Nation, republished in full by the History News Network, why arguing about whether African-Americans or women are most oppressed misses the point.
The controversy inspired by Hillary Clinton’s remark crediting Lyndon Johnson with the civil rights movement’s successes seems to have subsided. Contrary to much recent punditry, this contretemps does not prove that the Democratic primary has been reduced to a zero-sum game of identity politics. Rather, it reveals the complexity of bringing together the aspirations of different social groups within a single political movement–something Americans have experienced before.
Some commentators have already compared Barack Obama to Frederick Douglass, the former slave and crusader for emancipation who insisted that the post-Civil War years constituted the “Negro’s hour” and that the struggle for the rights of the newly freed slaves took precedence over gaining the vote for women. In this scenario, Hillary Clinton is a latter-day Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who broke with her male allies when they called on women to subordinate their claims. But like many historical analogies, this one distorts as much as it reveals.
American feminism was born of the abolitionist movement, with its powerful insistence on universal equality. Before the Civil War, abolitionists and feminists, male and female, worked together for an end to slavery and a new definition of citizenship in which rights would not be limited by race or gender. During the war feminists put aside the campaign for women’s rights to join in the struggle to save the Union and free the slaves. But they saw Reconstruction as a golden opportunity to claim for women their own emancipation.
He continues with the story of the abolitionists and the early feminists they nurtured, and how during the Civil War, “feminists put aside the campaign for women’s rights to join in the struggle to save the Union and free the slaves.” After the war, the 14th Amendment established black suffrage and introduced the word, “male,” into our constitution, but ignored women’s suffrage.
[F]eminists like Stanton saw abolitionist support for these laws and amendments as a betrayal of the movement’s long-standing commitment to full equality. A bitter controversy ensued, which resulted in Stanton and her supporters cutting their ties with their allies and forming an independent national organization to promote women’s suffrage. They now felt free to appeal to racial and ethnic prejudices, arguing on occasion that native-born white women deserved the vote more than nonwhites and immigrants.
He concludes:
The point is not that one position was right and one wrong–either in 1868 or 2008. During Reconstruction, both sides offered cogent arguments. One thing we can learn from their experience is that debating who is more oppressed is a fool’s game. Advocates of the rights of African-Americans and women achieve more working together than fighting among themselves.
Food for thought.
it’s the gays who are most oppressed! đŸ˜›
<
p>but seriously, i agree completely that we need to work together. the problems arise when
1. many of those you must appeal to for votes insist that you despise group X as much as they do, and/or
2. some members of oppressed groups X and Y each hold true thoughts of bigotry towards the other, or benefit somehow from the continued oppression of that other group.
<
p>somehow both obama and clinton need to do some deeds (not just yammer, please gawd) that put the electorate on notice that this divisiveness will NOT be tolerated. sadly, they havn’t thus far.
from Obama or Hillary claiming some group was more oppressed?
<
p>Because I don’t recall either one saying that.
No one is saying Obama or Clinton make this claim.
why arguing about whether African-Americans or women are most oppressed misses the point
<
p>I thought there was some implication that this article applied to the man and woman dominating conversation these days. Who has actually had the argument that misses the point?
That’s as close as I’ve seen to the argument you have in mind, I think. Her piece certainly got a lot of attention.
You know, I read and reread this piece…and couldn’t decide if I would comment. It leaves me too vulnerable. But – what the hell?
<
p>First of all, I’m sure Eric Foner isn’t laying awake at night wondering if he will ever see a white male president. My mother and her sister died before they could see a female president.
<
p>And that’s part of the problem. I think the ideals are wonderful on paper or screen, but in terms of a practical application, I also think it’s very difficult to tell people who have waited for this moment all of their lives….that they have to put their hopes and dreams aside to “work together” for the greater good.
<
p>And while we’re at it – who decides what the greater good is? Who sets the national agenda? It’s the people with the power and the money. It’s the corporations with lobbyists. Given this system – how reasonable is it to ask people who haven’t had either money or power- to wait another four years…eight years…twelve years? Another lifetime? Particularly when our system, rigged as it is, means that God only knows when one of ours will get the chance to reach for the brass ring again. Without faith and trust in the system – how do you get people to put down their guard? Maybe the system needs to get fixed first.
<
p>I think this thing just has to play itself out…and let the chips fall where they may. I don’t want to hear any more sermons. This is politics, not church, so I don’t expect my candidate to be saintly….nor do I have any delusions that she is. Obviously, I also don’t expect the other guy to be a saint either – I just don’t care to watch his supporters pretending that he is. This is a clash of the Titans here, and it’s not going to be pretty.
<
p>
…and the ruling class in America at this time consists of the Neo Robber Barons and their elite servitors, IMHO. No blacks and not women.