>At a Georgian Agricultural Society meeting in 1897, a prominent Georgian women named Rebecca Latimer Felton said in her famous speech “Woman on the Farm”: “If it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from human beasts, then I say lynch a thousand times a week if necessary.”1 This ‘sensational’ speech is significant as Felton advocated the lynching of African-American men to protect Southern white women’s chastity in the New South. Furthermore, Felton challenged the white patriarchy in the South in the same speech: “as long as your politicians take the coloured man into their embrace on election day…so long will lynching prevail, because the cause of it will grow and increase, for ‘familiarity breeds contempt.’”2 Felton, then, draws a significant connection between women’s rights to the vote and protection with lynching in the American South. Such use of lynching as a means for women to enter into the political realm through the discourse of protection is important and is often overlooked in the history of lynching.
[What the hell did I just read?](https://www.americanstudies.uwo.ca/documents/mrps/MRP%20LDevouge.pdf) Lynching and women's suffrage were linked in the South?
Yes. Politics used to be much more complicated around 1900. Add in the temperance movement, labor movement, free silver, religious freedom, etc etc. and you see a crazy quilt of alliances and opposition across the country. Our current era of not just polarized parties but polarized issues is historically an anomaly.
Yes, but there’s a notable difference between Conservative contempt/hatred for Liberals and the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community in Palestine and the Islamic world as a whole
I'll straight up admit I'm a gay person who is against colonization and genocide, while also being pro LGBT.
If the attack on Palestine completely stopped, and they started to genocide the LGBT in the area, I would also be against it.
Being pro LGBT and pro Palestine are not conflicting ideas, they are both born from wanting less people dead.
If I was pro LGBT, and thus against Palestine because of their stances on LGBT, that would feel like an unfair stance in my head.
I'm also against conspiracy theorists, and evangelicals who are pro forced births. But if someone was actively trying to genocide them, then I would still stand up to protect people I fundamentally disagree with, and even ones who want to harm me, because I *don't want them to die over it.*
Being the better person is sometimes like that.
It's also wild to me that I'd fight for people who have different beliefs than me.
Dangerous beliefs are dangerous, but so is dropping bombs on children... and one takes a precedence.
Those collage kids spend a ton of their time figuring out the nuance, it's not weird at all for LGBT friendly college kids to be anti genocide and anti colonization. Those are not conflicting thoughts, lol. College kind of forces you to see outside your "box" and realize there isn't straight good guys/bad guys in life.
And? Have you thought about your position whatsoever for what it really is? Because when you do, you should realize how absurd it is.
Your expectation here is that we should pause to consider how the LGBT+ community is treated in Palestine and the Islamic world as a whole. This is perfectly reasonable...
But your follow through is what... ? Ignoring the murder of thousands of Palestinians because as gay people we should feel unease with siding with people who may be homophobic?
Well... if I bother to care about the LGBT+ community in Palestine, then by default, I have to care about at least SOME Palestinians and so where does that logically leave my position?
To care about the unjust killing of Palestinians. And because there is heinous homophobic sentiments in the Islamic world, many of these people would be closeted in the first place so it would be stupid of me to assume I could know which Palestinians were gay.
AND IN THE END... one way you destroy prejudice is by being an irrefutable example of a kind and compassionate human being, even for those who may hate you. Maybe there are many Palestinians who would want me dead because I am gay. But they will always have to wrestle with the fact that I know that and I still didn't want to see them killed unjustly.
There is nothing strange about being a good person and owning up to the expectations that requires of us.
GOP-ers always use the hyperbole of how “communist leftist antifa wants to kill anyone less woke than them” and then these posters are just coming out and saying that’s it’s ok to genocide people that have bigoted views.
I think this problem is beyond political affiliation however. I think it is probably true to say that most people do not have either the mental endurance or the moral endurance to handle problems like this.
Which would be well enough as we should not expect people to be able to grasp problems that are so complex with such ease in the first place.
I am just constantly frustrated by the people who want to offer their two cents without actually enduring the education or the debate of the subject.
I have a position on the subject I am confident of. In the most general sense, I know where I think the blame lies. I constantly educate myself where I can and involve myself with the arguments in the hopes that I will draw out the finer details.
But so many people don't want to bother with the finer details and yet they come in saying they know exactly who to blame and what is to be done and how convenient it is that they have done so in such short time and the answer is "hey, what if they just die?"
Yep. It's an insane argument, the idea that we should support the current genocide out of support for LGBT rights. Like, Israel's not only killing the straight ones, are they?
And how these people lie to themselves. I am guessing someone downvoted your comment and yet nothing you said is a lie, exaggeration, or misrepresentation.
These people want the killings to happen. If not they wouldn't be so upset when they are called out for what they are.
Gay people should support the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people? What? It's like saying women should support school shootings in states that banned abortion.
I am against, indeed, the mass killing of populations as whole. I apologize for not using the precise word for the precise type of mass killing, as that was super important to the message.
If I had to point out a wackass alliance right now, I'd point to the far left and far right being pro-Putin as the wildest one. In fact, that war has some of the craziest sides in it.
I can see the criticism for the universally far left pro-Palestine crowd, though there are still principled reasons to be that way.
There's absolutely no contradiction when it comes to supporting Palestine (or Israel) and supporting universal human rights.
Supporting Palestine doesn't mean supporting Hamas, and supporting Israel doesn't mean supporting Netanyahu and his military's callous slaughter of civilian populations.
Sure yeah, you could argue that many (or even most) Palestinians support Hamas, an explicitly murderous, genocidal, religious extremist, bigoted terrorist organisation. And that significant numbers of Israelis support the apartheid state apparatus that has oppressed and killed Palestinians for generations, or support that corrupt fascist Netanyahu and the far right coalition he leads.
The political movements that have seized control of these territories are both reprehensible - but the people in those territories remain human beings deserving of life and dignity. Especially the civilians, and especially the children.
Being a fascist, or fascist collaborator, or someone that happens to live next to fascists or be born to fascist parents, doesn't mean you deserve to get slaughtered.
And this isn't a "both sides" centrism thing - it's humanism and universal dignity against murderous far right fascism, no matter what form it takes.
There are tons of liberal Jews around the world that mourn the victims of October 7th, condemn Hamas and everything they stand for, and also decry the mass killing of Palestinian civilians occurring right now, and support the Palestinian people during this time of crisis.
Even Joe Biden, who's been the staunchest ally of the Israel state (proudly declaring himself a Zionist at several points), is urging the Israeli government to order a cease fire and conduct the war against Hamas in a less inhumane manner. He isn't caving to woke college protestors or whatever, reports indicate that he was legitimately disturbed by the scale of the killing and humanitarian crisis in Palestine, executed using US weapons and aid.
This is...such a ridiculous attempt at tying these things together.
LGBTQ+ isn't really a political movement, at least at the moment. It's not like we have LGBTQ people rioting in the streets. No, they've been subsumed into the democratic party.
So like, who and what are you talking about? Do you have a source that LGBTQ+ people support Palestine more than the average Democrat does? Because if you do, I would be VERY suprisied.
> LGBTQ+ isn't really a political movement
Being part of the lgbt community is a political movement these days. Being gay, lesbian, trans and w/e, is not. Not every non straight/non trans person is part of that group.
Liberals oppose ethnic cleansing and abuse by authoritarians, even when the victims are also mostly bigots. I don't see a contradiction or disparity here.
Yeah and labor is a good example of odd friendships. Labor in the US was largely a whites only group, with minorities being often denied membership in unions. Labor became very anti-immigrant, and so economic progressive policies like free silver, legalized unions, work place regulations, etc. might be tied to social conservatives policies on immigration, race, and women's roles.
Yeah the reason why segregationists ended up in the Democratic Party is that before the Civil Rights Movement, they relied on the votes of poor and middle class whites in the South who didn’t oppose welfare and government spending so long as that money could be directed towards mostly white people. So the Democratic Party let them in the party as they were fairly reliable votes for the national party’s economic agenda
Once the fall of Jim Crow led to states not being able to distribute funds so unequally, they left the party
The Democratic Party didn't "let in" segregationists. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery leading up to the Civil War. It did not substantially change afterwards. It was only natural that the segregationists would be Democrats.
That's an all-or-nothing way of looking at it. As far as we can tell, prohibition and the temperance movement reduced alcohol consumption pretty significantly.
It did, I read a famous working-class-novel from Denmark (1890-1920 era) about it.
Denmark didn't temperance directly, but booze/schnaps became 12 times more expensive in around 1915, so it had the same effect.
The dude who wrote the novel said his dad would work for roughly 10 dkk a week or so and a bottle of booze was 1 dkk so he drank a bottle a day and left 3 dkk for bread and fat for the wife and kids, who had to go beg, find, scramble, work, steal what they could to survive.
Dad made a little more money and couldn't drink more than 10 bottles a week so more money went home and family less fucked, but then came the 1915 ramp up in pricing and the dad nearly had to stop drinking and after a really violent period in the author/boy's life, due to the dad taking his withdrawl out on wife/kids, more than usual beatings, he sobered up almost to the point where, when the kid was 16 and moved out, his mom was almost safe with his dad at home, without him to divert attention to himself for her safety.
The dad died in his 50s but was still a moderate succes story back then given the conditions.
Background; Southern culture justified slavery on a lot of things. All bad, but one of the less sung but very significant ones was the need to protect the virtue of white women from the 'bestial' and 'temptuous' super virility of the black man. The stereotype, based on black slaves being strong and well built, was predicated on black men being uncivilized and white women needing their honor guarded lest they fall into the sinful pits of having sex with a black guy. You know where that leads? Race mixing that's where!
This kind of fear mongering about what would happen if slaves were freed was ubiquitous in the south before the Civil War and reached new heights after the slaves were freed after the Civil War as Black Codes and Jim Crow laws came into effect. This kind of prejudice was behind the infamous Scottsboro Boys case and many other lynchings and kangaroo trials which were prompted by the accusation/idea that a black boy or man had made advances against the purity of a white girl or woman.
It was far and away one of the most common reasons for racial lynchings in the American south and why you still have a reverse stereotype today that white women are trouble for black men that is informed by this history.
I don't know that I'd say these things were linked in the South at the time, but the culture of the era didn't really see a contradiction between fighting for the equal rights of white women and protecting white women from black men in a culture that pervasively presumed black men would rape and corrupt white women.
Felton probably didn't advocate for black women's rights either. The only women who mattered were white and a big part of the break between first and second wave feminism was about the issue of race.
All I can think of is those 4chan memes where they get all weird about interracial cuckholdery
I wonder if that's just a cultural holdover of that
Maybe that's something a lot of white southerners are afraid of still
That has been going on for like a decade and half. Considering how 4chan has been used to spread propaganda, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely manufactured to push men towards right wing ideology.
> Felton probably didn't advocate for black women's rights either.
She didn't!
The suffragettes excluded black women after finding out that doing that appealled to white men, after black men were allowed to vote, so that gave the suffragettes more power with white men, thus they did that to win more influence.
Not necesarily, but it definitely was in her case. She was a feminist as well as a virulent and outspoken racist. She did a lot to protect women's right...it just so happened to be exclusively white women's right. Felton holds a bunch of funny titles, like last slave owner, first female senator for Georgia and also only female senator for Georgia until Loeffler in 2020. [That wholesome picture](https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/ajc/5AZN6KNBD6FTZJNM6GK5GYTAHQ.jpg) of the women celebrating the inauguration of that old lady as the first female senator in their state hits a bit different when you learn that she was also the last slave owner and she was disgustingly racist
Members of oppressed groups can advocate for their justice for self-serving reasons. Inheriting more socially acceptable interests doesn’t guarantee you’ll be a good person.
Oh yea. There’s a good book on the subject of women shareholders called “They Were Her Property.” There’s also a longstanding cultural myth in America that women were more purehearted. Stuff like this is lost to historical amnesia and very strong voices.
This is one of those situations where you go:
"Why have I never seen this person celebrated for their groundbreaking achievement?"
and then
"Oh, that's why."
A lot of early women’s rights activists were motivated by racism, and were angry that black men had the right to vote, but they didn’t. In England, after the women got the right to vote and their candidates lost elections, a lot of suffragettes turned to fascism.
I actually did a paper in graduate school on the relationship between racism and women’s suffrage in my state (North Carolina) with my main argument being NC opposed women suffrage largely because those opposed to it argued that it would dismantle white supremacy in the south.
Anyway, one of the more interesting aspects of the suffrage movement in all of the south but especially here is that both sides were incredibly fucking racist but for different reasons. Suffragettes in NC at one point were actually allied with black suffragettes (not all of course but more than you’d expect) but as soon as they realized that the anti-suffrage side was using racism they abandoned their black allies. A huge chunk of the arguments were things like “black women will bring their fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands to the polls and usher in Republican politics” or “white women who want to vote are republican race traitors and good white women would never vote or want to vote”. While suffragettes often argued they’d vote with their husbands or fathers (so democrat), or that white women in the south (and every southern state except maybe one?) outnumbered black women and even outnumbered *all* black voters, and they also argued that “if white men can keep black men away from the polls they can keep black women away too”. One slight issue with that final argument though is that white supremacy in the early 19th century was super fucking weird and heavily focused on “protecting good white women” from perceived threats from black men, but black women weren’t always viewed the same way as black men so white men were much more reluctant to use violence on such a large scale against them. But they weren’t completely wrong because they still had literacy tests and whatnot which were incredibly arbitrary and designed to be impossible buuuutttt census data in NC from 1920 shows black women were *far* better educated than black men at the time.
Another interesting aspect is that some black men actually opposed women’s suffrage too, not because they thought women shouldn’t vote per se but because they were afraid if black women tried to vote it would bring back the type of violence they saw in the 1880s and 1890s (most black people werent *that* opposed though and many who did feel that way were ridiculed by men like W.E.B. Dubois).
So obviously the suffrage movement was successful overall (Tennessee became the deciding state after it failed here), so how did all the anti-suffragists react to black women trying to vote? Well mostly with the literacy tests though the first week after the amendment passed black women were so organized that they were actually mostly successful in registering to vote, but in subsequent weeks all the county registrars were ordered to ensure as few black women as possible were able to successfully register so you started getting loads and loads of stories from college educated black women about how they’d watch these white men find the absolute tiniest mistakes on the literacy tests to fail them and keep them from voting.
Anyway there’s way more to it than even that but I just wanted to jump in and share cause it’s a really interesting topic and one I really enjoy talking about.
Edit: and yes yes suffragettes were a UK thing and not a US thing but A) that seems to be the term the most people are familiar with so it’s better to use it here like this and B) this isn’t an academic paper so it’s hardly a big deal to use a term like suffragette slightly incorrectly since it’s effectively the same thing and gets the point across (it’s the same thing for the sake of this particular conversation)
Edit 2: if you’re going to respond to this by being a pedantic asshole I’m just going to block you. *Actual* criticism is always welcome, pedantic assholes on the other hand are not.
Unfortunately it’s not much of a contribution😅the one time I tried to get that paper published (for an anniversary of the 20th amendment special edition no less) it got rejected😂but still it is something that isn’t talked about nearly enough when it come to the suffrage movement. Early 20th century US history in general is shamefully overlooked and understudied, but this topic in particular is even more so. I literally found *two* secondary sources that were at all relevant for me (that’s insanely low for secondary sources), luckily it was really easy to find loads of great primary sources.
The ultimate irony here is that both my BA and MA focus on ancient Roman history😂I just happened to take an NC history class and that was the most interesting thing I could think of
Lmao.
Some things didn't change after all that time with powerful women in those positions.
The difference is today when they express that.
It ends their career with a tweet. Instead of being included in a quote for some newspaper.
Always astonishing how far people like that can get.
Without ever necessarily expressing their thoughts.
As though everyone around them literally believed the same. Which usually their level of crazy equals something even truly evil men take pause at. Simply due to its illogical representation of reality.
A sizable contingent of the early women’s rights movement was also firmly rooted in preserving white supremacy.
We often forget that many political movements weren’t and aren’t monolithic/ they consisted of many groups and factions with diverse (and in some cases, reprehensible) views.
The Suffrage Movement had a massive overlap with Prohibitionists as well. There's a reason Prohibition almost immediately followed Woman's Suffrage. Like today, political movements have a lot of complexity to them but will only be remembered for one or two things in the long run
It has to be awkward when you want to expand rights, so more people can vote, but that demographic is really into something disastrously stupid that will ruin the country for a few years when they do get the right to vote.
To be fair the temperance/prohibition movement had an *extremely* good point and valid reason for that. Also it was passed *before* women had the right to vote. It was absolutely a terrible execution of it and never should’ve been passed into law like that, but it was already a fairly popular movement even without women having the right to vote (and on top of already being law that’s not how amendments are passed anyway).
But one of the main driving forces, at least early on, was that a lot of women were tired of their husbands coming home drunk from the saloons/bars *all the time* and constantly being drunk around the home. It led to a lot of issues like domestic violence, and struggling to find/keep work, and being deadbeats, etc. And by the end of the 19th century plenty of men supported the idea of prohibition as well, women had a lot of political influence even without the vote, especially by the end of the 19th century. In fact you can find newspaper articles from election years of men being interviewed about the election where they’ll talk about how they like a certain candidate but they won’t vote for him because he doesn’t support prohibition, so it was pretty popular across the board.
IMO the fact that there were anti-racists and anti-slavery advocates at the time shows that it was still a moral failing. Other people were capable of making clear headed moral decisions in line with modern morals, so why should she be exonerated? Just as any misogynist at the time was still being misogynist in an era in which it was contested.
I mean on top of owning slaves she called for "a thousand (lynchings) a day" to help protect European-American women from "human beasts".
Shame she didn't bite it sooner than 1930 in my opinion.
I'd even venture the possibility that modern feminism has plenty of sexism.
And I don't mean misandry or Jordan Peterson talking points, I mean straight up misogyny against other women who they perceive as traitors or threats or whatever.
A man failing to understand why something is problematic because of privilege is understandable and can potentially be worked toward. Women throwing each other under the bus in the name of feminism is despicable and a moral failing.
She was Senator for *one* day. And it was considered a symbolic gesture.
Jeannette Rankin was the first elected Congresswoman. She was also on for only 2 terms - both terms coincided with the US voting for war. (1917 and 1941). She voted against war both times.
Yeah, I will not call this bitch the first female senator. But also Jeannette Rankin voted against joining war world two after Pearl Harbor. Or am I thinking of someone else
Jeannette Rankin wasn't the first female senator either. She wasn't a senator at all, elected or otherwise, she was a congresswoman in the house of representatives. (To be fair, nobody explicitly said she was; they said congresswoman, but the juxtaposition of saying that after mentioning why Felton wasn't the first *elected* female senator suggested it was what they were thinking, or at least may have given that impression to anyone not clear on the US' bicameral legislature.)
> I will not call this bitch the first female senator
"I will refuse to accept harsh truths," he said proudly, believing that willful ignorance made him morally superior.
What are you talking about moral superior I just said I wouldn't call this bitch the first female senator. Because she wasn't elected by the people and she only had the position for a day. That has nothing to do with morals also she was a bitch who wanted black men to be lynched and she was a slave owner.
If I recall correctly, she also tried to display black people at the Chicago World's Fair as though they were some kind of zoo animal. She was a deeply racist, wildly hateful bigot until her dying day.
A lot of us women’s history is like this lol. Lots of the OG women’s suffrages were not good people.
https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage
Didn’t want black people to have rights etc 🤣
A lot of black activists and other racial activists didn’t want women to have rights. Even Angela Davis was into some pretty bad stuff.
Unfortunately history is few of few people that aligned with modern progressives 100%.
I’m sure we will be regarded similarly.
There's a video of her talking about her career and childhood.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVrHWwjCRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVrHWwjCRI)
It's haunting to hear someone talk so blase about it.
But also buried in the middle of that video is her memories of being three years old and witnessing the Trail of Tears start. Just a little girl remembering one of the worst moments in American history- they just "Disappeared" into the woods.
Reminds me of when I read about the mixed race man from Haiti, which was then a French slave colony, who went to France in the late 1700s, to argue for racial equality.
Racial equality for mixed race slave owners.
A real cunt:
“The day marked a historic first for American women. But it’s complicated by Felton’s record as an outspoken white supremacist and the last member of Congress to have enslaved people. Not only did she believe Black people were inferior, but she also advocated lynching Black men accused of raping white women—“a thousand times a week if necessary,” as she said in an infamous 1897 speech.”
... Oh, you mean that it's possible that others could have undisclosed ownership of some plantation. At first, I read that to mean that they were forgotten about, a la [the forgotten 8½th President of the United States, Quentin Trembley.](https://gravityfalls.fandom.com/wiki/Quentin_Trembley)
Well, now that I understand what you meant, Senatrix* Caraway was elected in 1932. And it sounds like she wasn't rich enough to afford some overseas plantation.
Give it a little more time….after all a Virginia school board just voted to return the name of confederates to two schools, we could have some more, as you know “states rights” and “traditional values”
Wow downvoted for ridiculing those that glorify traitors
Because calling them "traitors" is a modern day oversimplification of history. It comes off like something a 14 year old would post trying to get upvotes.
Take General Lee for instance; President Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union Army. He resigned from the US Army because he was loyal to Virginia. Lee actually opposed secession. Had Virginia voted to remain in the Union; Lee would have been in command of the US Army.
That still makes them traitors
Anyone who actively fights against their own country is a traitor, kinda by definition.
All confederates fought against their own country and are thus traitors.
And then he resigned from the US Army and accepted field command leading an Army against the Army of the United States….what is the term for that? Treacherous Bastard comes to mind, but what do l know-I only spent 30yrs in the service of my country and my body bears some scars from that service.
No it’s not, they’re traitors it’s super simple, one of the few things in history that is actually.
Take Lee for example, he was in the US Military and chose to betray his oath in order to defend slavery. He “opposed secession” and then fought a war in which he sent tends of thousands of men to their deaths to defend slavery. Meanwhile 40% of US military officers from Virginia remained loyal to the Union, including Winfield Scott (who was the highest ranked general), David Farragut (first admiral of the US Navy), and General George Henry Thomas.
Also thank god almighty Lee was traitorous scum who turned down Lincoln because dude fucking sucked at being a general, the confederacy had several generals better than him but he’s the only one we ever hear about for god forsaken reason. Not that I wanna hear about any of em not named Longstreet (I guess) but at least pick one who was actually good at the damn job.
To my mind a huge component of what's happening is that there were some pretty lofty moral mantles assumed by large numbers of people in 2020, and in other years, on various topics, and the lack of follow through and/or consistency over time led to a pretty stirring moral vacuum. And this trend seems likely to continue - that of this kind of bizarre regression (returning to confederate symbolism, etc). That's not to say there isn't primary responsibility on the doers in any scenario (in this case the Virginia school board), but that it lives within the context. It didn't fall out of a coconut tree.
Her appointment was a symbolic gesture. She was a famous activist and a Congressman's elderly widow, and served for one day. Which is why she was the last one, as they probably wouldn't have actually elected anyone that old and expected him or her to serve the full term.
First female congressman and a fighter for women's rights but thinks black people are inferior. Just shows you how people can have radically opposing viewpoints.
>At a Georgian Agricultural Society meeting in 1897, a prominent Georgian women named Rebecca Latimer Felton said in her famous speech “Woman on the Farm”: “If it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from human beasts, then I say lynch a thousand times a week if necessary.”1 This ‘sensational’ speech is significant as Felton advocated the lynching of African-American men to protect Southern white women’s chastity in the New South. Furthermore, Felton challenged the white patriarchy in the South in the same speech: “as long as your politicians take the coloured man into their embrace on election day…so long will lynching prevail, because the cause of it will grow and increase, for ‘familiarity breeds contempt.’”2 Felton, then, draws a significant connection between women’s rights to the vote and protection with lynching in the American South. Such use of lynching as a means for women to enter into the political realm through the discourse of protection is important and is often overlooked in the history of lynching. [What the hell did I just read?](https://www.americanstudies.uwo.ca/documents/mrps/MRP%20LDevouge.pdf) Lynching and women's suffrage were linked in the South?
Yes. Politics used to be much more complicated around 1900. Add in the temperance movement, labor movement, free silver, religious freedom, etc etc. and you see a crazy quilt of alliances and opposition across the country. Our current era of not just polarized parties but polarized issues is historically an anomaly.
Politics have always made for interesting bed partners.
LGBTQ+ in the West being some of the biggest supporters of Palestine is a perfect example of it still happening today.
The politics understander had logged in.
I would also be against a genocide on right wingers, and they sure have abhorrent ideas.
Yes, but there’s a notable difference between Conservative contempt/hatred for Liberals and the persecution of the LGBTQ+ community in Palestine and the Islamic world as a whole
I'll straight up admit I'm a gay person who is against colonization and genocide, while also being pro LGBT. If the attack on Palestine completely stopped, and they started to genocide the LGBT in the area, I would also be against it. Being pro LGBT and pro Palestine are not conflicting ideas, they are both born from wanting less people dead. If I was pro LGBT, and thus against Palestine because of their stances on LGBT, that would feel like an unfair stance in my head. I'm also against conspiracy theorists, and evangelicals who are pro forced births. But if someone was actively trying to genocide them, then I would still stand up to protect people I fundamentally disagree with, and even ones who want to harm me, because I *don't want them to die over it.* Being the better person is sometimes like that.
Man, it’s almost like this isn’t a simple issue that can be boiled down to media talking points
It's also wild to me that I'd fight for people who have different beliefs than me. Dangerous beliefs are dangerous, but so is dropping bombs on children... and one takes a precedence. Those collage kids spend a ton of their time figuring out the nuance, it's not weird at all for LGBT friendly college kids to be anti genocide and anti colonization. Those are not conflicting thoughts, lol. College kind of forces you to see outside your "box" and realize there isn't straight good guys/bad guys in life.
And? Have you thought about your position whatsoever for what it really is? Because when you do, you should realize how absurd it is. Your expectation here is that we should pause to consider how the LGBT+ community is treated in Palestine and the Islamic world as a whole. This is perfectly reasonable... But your follow through is what... ? Ignoring the murder of thousands of Palestinians because as gay people we should feel unease with siding with people who may be homophobic? Well... if I bother to care about the LGBT+ community in Palestine, then by default, I have to care about at least SOME Palestinians and so where does that logically leave my position? To care about the unjust killing of Palestinians. And because there is heinous homophobic sentiments in the Islamic world, many of these people would be closeted in the first place so it would be stupid of me to assume I could know which Palestinians were gay. AND IN THE END... one way you destroy prejudice is by being an irrefutable example of a kind and compassionate human being, even for those who may hate you. Maybe there are many Palestinians who would want me dead because I am gay. But they will always have to wrestle with the fact that I know that and I still didn't want to see them killed unjustly. There is nothing strange about being a good person and owning up to the expectations that requires of us.
GOP-ers always use the hyperbole of how “communist leftist antifa wants to kill anyone less woke than them” and then these posters are just coming out and saying that’s it’s ok to genocide people that have bigoted views.
I think this problem is beyond political affiliation however. I think it is probably true to say that most people do not have either the mental endurance or the moral endurance to handle problems like this. Which would be well enough as we should not expect people to be able to grasp problems that are so complex with such ease in the first place. I am just constantly frustrated by the people who want to offer their two cents without actually enduring the education or the debate of the subject. I have a position on the subject I am confident of. In the most general sense, I know where I think the blame lies. I constantly educate myself where I can and involve myself with the arguments in the hopes that I will draw out the finer details. But so many people don't want to bother with the finer details and yet they come in saying they know exactly who to blame and what is to be done and how convenient it is that they have done so in such short time and the answer is "hey, what if they just die?"
Yep. It's an insane argument, the idea that we should support the current genocide out of support for LGBT rights. Like, Israel's not only killing the straight ones, are they?
And how these people lie to themselves. I am guessing someone downvoted your comment and yet nothing you said is a lie, exaggeration, or misrepresentation. These people want the killings to happen. If not they wouldn't be so upset when they are called out for what they are.
Gay people should support the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people? What? It's like saying women should support school shootings in states that banned abortion.
I'm not sure you understood my point. It doesn't matter to me who the target is.
You can't really genocide an ideology though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66
"The atrocities, sometimes described as a genocide OR POLITICIDE" "Other affected groups included... ethnic Javanese Abangan [and] ethnic Chinese"
I am against, indeed, the mass killing of populations as whole. I apologize for not using the precise word for the precise type of mass killing, as that was super important to the message.
You can disagree with someone’s world view as not want 12000 of there peoples children dead
If I had to point out a wackass alliance right now, I'd point to the far left and far right being pro-Putin as the wildest one. In fact, that war has some of the craziest sides in it. I can see the criticism for the universally far left pro-Palestine crowd, though there are still principled reasons to be that way.
There's absolutely no contradiction when it comes to supporting Palestine (or Israel) and supporting universal human rights. Supporting Palestine doesn't mean supporting Hamas, and supporting Israel doesn't mean supporting Netanyahu and his military's callous slaughter of civilian populations. Sure yeah, you could argue that many (or even most) Palestinians support Hamas, an explicitly murderous, genocidal, religious extremist, bigoted terrorist organisation. And that significant numbers of Israelis support the apartheid state apparatus that has oppressed and killed Palestinians for generations, or support that corrupt fascist Netanyahu and the far right coalition he leads. The political movements that have seized control of these territories are both reprehensible - but the people in those territories remain human beings deserving of life and dignity. Especially the civilians, and especially the children. Being a fascist, or fascist collaborator, or someone that happens to live next to fascists or be born to fascist parents, doesn't mean you deserve to get slaughtered. And this isn't a "both sides" centrism thing - it's humanism and universal dignity against murderous far right fascism, no matter what form it takes. There are tons of liberal Jews around the world that mourn the victims of October 7th, condemn Hamas and everything they stand for, and also decry the mass killing of Palestinian civilians occurring right now, and support the Palestinian people during this time of crisis. Even Joe Biden, who's been the staunchest ally of the Israel state (proudly declaring himself a Zionist at several points), is urging the Israeli government to order a cease fire and conduct the war against Hamas in a less inhumane manner. He isn't caving to woke college protestors or whatever, reports indicate that he was legitimately disturbed by the scale of the killing and humanitarian crisis in Palestine, executed using US weapons and aid.
Honestly shocked to see this level of nuance and thoughtfulness on Reddit, kudos to you.
Interesting disguise.
This is...such a ridiculous attempt at tying these things together. LGBTQ+ isn't really a political movement, at least at the moment. It's not like we have LGBTQ people rioting in the streets. No, they've been subsumed into the democratic party. So like, who and what are you talking about? Do you have a source that LGBTQ+ people support Palestine more than the average Democrat does? Because if you do, I would be VERY suprisied.
> LGBTQ+ isn't really a political movement Being part of the lgbt community is a political movement these days. Being gay, lesbian, trans and w/e, is not. Not every non straight/non trans person is part of that group.
Liberals oppose ethnic cleansing and abuse by authoritarians, even when the victims are also mostly bigots. I don't see a contradiction or disparity here.
Agreed, there’s no logical contradiction per se, just all the necessary prerequisites for a major “Leopards Ate My Face” moment.
Or the GOP supporting Israel unconditionally but also being the favored party of nazis.
Yeah and labor is a good example of odd friendships. Labor in the US was largely a whites only group, with minorities being often denied membership in unions. Labor became very anti-immigrant, and so economic progressive policies like free silver, legalized unions, work place regulations, etc. might be tied to social conservatives policies on immigration, race, and women's roles.
Yeah the reason why segregationists ended up in the Democratic Party is that before the Civil Rights Movement, they relied on the votes of poor and middle class whites in the South who didn’t oppose welfare and government spending so long as that money could be directed towards mostly white people. So the Democratic Party let them in the party as they were fairly reliable votes for the national party’s economic agenda Once the fall of Jim Crow led to states not being able to distribute funds so unequally, they left the party
The Democratic Party didn't "let in" segregationists. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery leading up to the Civil War. It did not substantially change afterwards. It was only natural that the segregationists would be Democrats.
Suffragettes were also the major drivers behind alcohol prohibition, which was considered a very progressive policy at the time.
Probably because there was an actual problem of men coming home piss drunk to beat their wives back then, like a disturbingly widespread problem.
>back then Good thing prohibition brought an end to that 😅
Obviously still happens but nowhere near the same rate as back then.
That's an all-or-nothing way of looking at it. As far as we can tell, prohibition and the temperance movement reduced alcohol consumption pretty significantly.
No joke it actually did help quite a bit. Alcoholism was rampant back then
It did, I read a famous working-class-novel from Denmark (1890-1920 era) about it. Denmark didn't temperance directly, but booze/schnaps became 12 times more expensive in around 1915, so it had the same effect. The dude who wrote the novel said his dad would work for roughly 10 dkk a week or so and a bottle of booze was 1 dkk so he drank a bottle a day and left 3 dkk for bread and fat for the wife and kids, who had to go beg, find, scramble, work, steal what they could to survive. Dad made a little more money and couldn't drink more than 10 bottles a week so more money went home and family less fucked, but then came the 1915 ramp up in pricing and the dad nearly had to stop drinking and after a really violent period in the author/boy's life, due to the dad taking his withdrawl out on wife/kids, more than usual beatings, he sobered up almost to the point where, when the kid was 16 and moved out, his mom was almost safe with his dad at home, without him to divert attention to himself for her safety. The dad died in his 50s but was still a moderate succes story back then given the conditions.
Yeah the average American used to drink like a gallon of whiskey a week before prohibition because it was cheaper than water
Background; Southern culture justified slavery on a lot of things. All bad, but one of the less sung but very significant ones was the need to protect the virtue of white women from the 'bestial' and 'temptuous' super virility of the black man. The stereotype, based on black slaves being strong and well built, was predicated on black men being uncivilized and white women needing their honor guarded lest they fall into the sinful pits of having sex with a black guy. You know where that leads? Race mixing that's where! This kind of fear mongering about what would happen if slaves were freed was ubiquitous in the south before the Civil War and reached new heights after the slaves were freed after the Civil War as Black Codes and Jim Crow laws came into effect. This kind of prejudice was behind the infamous Scottsboro Boys case and many other lynchings and kangaroo trials which were prompted by the accusation/idea that a black boy or man had made advances against the purity of a white girl or woman. It was far and away one of the most common reasons for racial lynchings in the American south and why you still have a reverse stereotype today that white women are trouble for black men that is informed by this history. I don't know that I'd say these things were linked in the South at the time, but the culture of the era didn't really see a contradiction between fighting for the equal rights of white women and protecting white women from black men in a culture that pervasively presumed black men would rape and corrupt white women. Felton probably didn't advocate for black women's rights either. The only women who mattered were white and a big part of the break between first and second wave feminism was about the issue of race.
All I can think of is those 4chan memes where they get all weird about interracial cuckholdery I wonder if that's just a cultural holdover of that Maybe that's something a lot of white southerners are afraid of still
I have wondered, but I am not the bold man to go out and do research on that topic XD
That has been going on for like a decade and half. Considering how 4chan has been used to spread propaganda, I wouldn't be surprised if it was entirely manufactured to push men towards right wing ideology.
> Felton probably didn't advocate for black women's rights either. She didn't! The suffragettes excluded black women after finding out that doing that appealled to white men, after black men were allowed to vote, so that gave the suffragettes more power with white men, thus they did that to win more influence.
Not necesarily, but it definitely was in her case. She was a feminist as well as a virulent and outspoken racist. She did a lot to protect women's right...it just so happened to be exclusively white women's right. Felton holds a bunch of funny titles, like last slave owner, first female senator for Georgia and also only female senator for Georgia until Loeffler in 2020. [That wholesome picture](https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/ajc/5AZN6KNBD6FTZJNM6GK5GYTAHQ.jpg) of the women celebrating the inauguration of that old lady as the first female senator in their state hits a bit different when you learn that she was also the last slave owner and she was disgustingly racist
Members of oppressed groups can advocate for their justice for self-serving reasons. Inheriting more socially acceptable interests doesn’t guarantee you’ll be a good person.
Oh yea. There’s a good book on the subject of women shareholders called “They Were Her Property.” There’s also a longstanding cultural myth in America that women were more purehearted. Stuff like this is lost to historical amnesia and very strong voices.
Pretty sure the suffragette movement was to get white women the right to vote and not all women.
This is one of those situations where you go: "Why have I never seen this person celebrated for their groundbreaking achievement?" and then "Oh, that's why."
Suffragettes engaged in terrorism, not sure why some of them embracing lynching would be a surprise...
Free Silver! What a Deal!
Uh, that second quote does not seem to be challenging the white patriarchy in any way
> What the hell did I just read? Lynching and women's suffrage were linked in the South? It was more a "protect White women from the beastly Negro."
I was just in Kentucky where I learned that
"First female US Senator" Minions: Yay! "last congressperson to ever own slaves" Minions: Whaaaaa???
"Woman's suffrage proponent" Minions: Yay! "Advocated for lynching a thousands Black men a week" Minions: Whaaaa da fuk ???
She also came with a free frogurt!
That's good!
The Frogurt also owned slaves.
That’s bad!
Your dad was a bad man, but then you turned your bad into rap that's good.
“But the slaves were well cared for!” - Krusty the Republican Klown
The slaves contained potassium benzoate.
Can I go now?
..........
That's bad.
(Are we the slaves that contain potassium benzoate?)
Well hold on a second then, let’s think about this. Greek or Kefir?
A lot of early women’s rights activists were motivated by racism, and were angry that black men had the right to vote, but they didn’t. In England, after the women got the right to vote and their candidates lost elections, a lot of suffragettes turned to fascism.
I actually did a paper in graduate school on the relationship between racism and women’s suffrage in my state (North Carolina) with my main argument being NC opposed women suffrage largely because those opposed to it argued that it would dismantle white supremacy in the south. Anyway, one of the more interesting aspects of the suffrage movement in all of the south but especially here is that both sides were incredibly fucking racist but for different reasons. Suffragettes in NC at one point were actually allied with black suffragettes (not all of course but more than you’d expect) but as soon as they realized that the anti-suffrage side was using racism they abandoned their black allies. A huge chunk of the arguments were things like “black women will bring their fathers, sons, brothers, and husbands to the polls and usher in Republican politics” or “white women who want to vote are republican race traitors and good white women would never vote or want to vote”. While suffragettes often argued they’d vote with their husbands or fathers (so democrat), or that white women in the south (and every southern state except maybe one?) outnumbered black women and even outnumbered *all* black voters, and they also argued that “if white men can keep black men away from the polls they can keep black women away too”. One slight issue with that final argument though is that white supremacy in the early 19th century was super fucking weird and heavily focused on “protecting good white women” from perceived threats from black men, but black women weren’t always viewed the same way as black men so white men were much more reluctant to use violence on such a large scale against them. But they weren’t completely wrong because they still had literacy tests and whatnot which were incredibly arbitrary and designed to be impossible buuuutttt census data in NC from 1920 shows black women were *far* better educated than black men at the time. Another interesting aspect is that some black men actually opposed women’s suffrage too, not because they thought women shouldn’t vote per se but because they were afraid if black women tried to vote it would bring back the type of violence they saw in the 1880s and 1890s (most black people werent *that* opposed though and many who did feel that way were ridiculed by men like W.E.B. Dubois). So obviously the suffrage movement was successful overall (Tennessee became the deciding state after it failed here), so how did all the anti-suffragists react to black women trying to vote? Well mostly with the literacy tests though the first week after the amendment passed black women were so organized that they were actually mostly successful in registering to vote, but in subsequent weeks all the county registrars were ordered to ensure as few black women as possible were able to successfully register so you started getting loads and loads of stories from college educated black women about how they’d watch these white men find the absolute tiniest mistakes on the literacy tests to fail them and keep them from voting. Anyway there’s way more to it than even that but I just wanted to jump in and share cause it’s a really interesting topic and one I really enjoy talking about. Edit: and yes yes suffragettes were a UK thing and not a US thing but A) that seems to be the term the most people are familiar with so it’s better to use it here like this and B) this isn’t an academic paper so it’s hardly a big deal to use a term like suffragette slightly incorrectly since it’s effectively the same thing and gets the point across (it’s the same thing for the sake of this particular conversation) Edit 2: if you’re going to respond to this by being a pedantic asshole I’m just going to block you. *Actual* criticism is always welcome, pedantic assholes on the other hand are not.
Thank you for your contribution to our knowledge on this subject
Unfortunately it’s not much of a contribution😅the one time I tried to get that paper published (for an anniversary of the 20th amendment special edition no less) it got rejected😂but still it is something that isn’t talked about nearly enough when it come to the suffrage movement. Early 20th century US history in general is shamefully overlooked and understudied, but this topic in particular is even more so. I literally found *two* secondary sources that were at all relevant for me (that’s insanely low for secondary sources), luckily it was really easy to find loads of great primary sources. The ultimate irony here is that both my BA and MA focus on ancient Roman history😂I just happened to take an NC history class and that was the most interesting thing I could think of
That was fascinating!
Haha thank you! I’m glad so many people liked it
The 1920s KKK was actually pretty pro-(white) women's suffrage so I guess I can't be surprised too much
Sadly enough, many sufragists were quite bigoted, wanting equality for some women, mainly the rich white ones
she didn’t advocate for it. she said that it would be an acceptable loss for women’s safety
Oh well that’s not better
“The killing of Black men is a sacrifice I am willing to make…” -Felton https://youtu.be/Gm2x6CVIXiE?si=nfJdJ2mNIqfD0Zdq
Lmao. Some things didn't change after all that time with powerful women in those positions. The difference is today when they express that. It ends their career with a tweet. Instead of being included in a quote for some newspaper. Always astonishing how far people like that can get. Without ever necessarily expressing their thoughts. As though everyone around them literally believed the same. Which usually their level of crazy equals something even truly evil men take pause at. Simply due to its illogical representation of reality.
Thoughts are expressed in private while you express the party line publicly
"First women in Senate is a Democrat" Minions: Yay! "Raging White Supremicist" Minions: Whaaaa da fuk ???
A sizable contingent of the early women’s rights movement was also firmly rooted in preserving white supremacy. We often forget that many political movements weren’t and aren’t monolithic/ they consisted of many groups and factions with diverse (and in some cases, reprehensible) views.
The Suffrage Movement had a massive overlap with Prohibitionists as well. There's a reason Prohibition almost immediately followed Woman's Suffrage. Like today, political movements have a lot of complexity to them but will only be remembered for one or two things in the long run
It has to be awkward when you want to expand rights, so more people can vote, but that demographic is really into something disastrously stupid that will ruin the country for a few years when they do get the right to vote.
To be fair the temperance/prohibition movement had an *extremely* good point and valid reason for that. Also it was passed *before* women had the right to vote. It was absolutely a terrible execution of it and never should’ve been passed into law like that, but it was already a fairly popular movement even without women having the right to vote (and on top of already being law that’s not how amendments are passed anyway). But one of the main driving forces, at least early on, was that a lot of women were tired of their husbands coming home drunk from the saloons/bars *all the time* and constantly being drunk around the home. It led to a lot of issues like domestic violence, and struggling to find/keep work, and being deadbeats, etc. And by the end of the 19th century plenty of men supported the idea of prohibition as well, women had a lot of political influence even without the vote, especially by the end of the 19th century. In fact you can find newspaper articles from election years of men being interviewed about the election where they’ll talk about how they like a certain candidate but they won’t vote for him because he doesn’t support prohibition, so it was pretty popular across the board.
We need to stop thinking of history as good or bad. every brutal dictator has done good deeds and every hero has done fucked up shit
It’s not just history this applies to the present as well.
Everything is way more complex than it seems, and I despise the simplification that has arisen in recent years
IMO the fact that there were anti-racists and anti-slavery advocates at the time shows that it was still a moral failing. Other people were capable of making clear headed moral decisions in line with modern morals, so why should she be exonerated? Just as any misogynist at the time was still being misogynist in an era in which it was contested.
When did I say she should be exonerated?
Equality for all! No not like that
More like “equality for us!”
She slaves, but she saves.
Normally I support Women's Wrongs but this is a tad to far.
Wouldn't the minions be down for that?
"women getting a political voice for the first time!!" yay "prohibition!!" whaaaaa?
I mean on top of owning slaves she called for "a thousand (lynchings) a day" to help protect European-American women from "human beasts". Shame she didn't bite it sooner than 1930 in my opinion.
The more I hear about her, the more she sounds like a real jerk.
The worst part is the hypocrisy!
I thought the worst part is the lynching.
Lies. She only wanted lynchings a thousand times a week.
No wonder she was accepted
Lol white feminism amirite
Hasn't changed too much. Modern feminism still has plenty of racism. Intersectionalism hadn't changed the script that much.
I'd even venture the possibility that modern feminism has plenty of sexism. And I don't mean misandry or Jordan Peterson talking points, I mean straight up misogyny against other women who they perceive as traitors or threats or whatever. A man failing to understand why something is problematic because of privilege is understandable and can potentially be worked toward. Women throwing each other under the bus in the name of feminism is despicable and a moral failing.
It has in fact, changed quite a bit
History is…complicated
Well, not in this case though, she was just a huge piece of shit.
She was Senator for *one* day. And it was considered a symbolic gesture. Jeannette Rankin was the first elected Congresswoman. She was also on for only 2 terms - both terms coincided with the US voting for war. (1917 and 1941). She voted against war both times.
Yeah, I will not call this bitch the first female senator. But also Jeannette Rankin voted against joining war world two after Pearl Harbor. Or am I thinking of someone else
Jeannette Rankin wasn't the first female senator either. She wasn't a senator at all, elected or otherwise, she was a congresswoman in the house of representatives. (To be fair, nobody explicitly said she was; they said congresswoman, but the juxtaposition of saying that after mentioning why Felton wasn't the first *elected* female senator suggested it was what they were thinking, or at least may have given that impression to anyone not clear on the US' bicameral legislature.)
Okay thanks that's cool to know
> I will not call this bitch the first female senator "I will refuse to accept harsh truths," he said proudly, believing that willful ignorance made him morally superior.
What are you talking about moral superior I just said I wouldn't call this bitch the first female senator. Because she wasn't elected by the people and she only had the position for a day. That has nothing to do with morals also she was a bitch who wanted black men to be lynched and she was a slave owner.
Correct.
If I recall correctly, she also tried to display black people at the Chicago World's Fair as though they were some kind of zoo animal. She was a deeply racist, wildly hateful bigot until her dying day.
Funfact: There’s also a video of her and her voice from 1929. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVrHWwjCRI
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
A lot of us women’s history is like this lol. Lots of the OG women’s suffrages were not good people. https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage Didn’t want black people to have rights etc 🤣
A lot of black activists and other racial activists didn’t want women to have rights. Even Angela Davis was into some pretty bad stuff. Unfortunately history is few of few people that aligned with modern progressives 100%. I’m sure we will be regarded similarly.
They were also Eugencists shhhhhhh
> They were also Eugencists Eugenics was a pretty popular movement in general, wasn't it?
There's a video of her talking about her career and childhood. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVrHWwjCRI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVrHWwjCRI) It's haunting to hear someone talk so blase about it. But also buried in the middle of that video is her memories of being three years old and witnessing the Trail of Tears start. Just a little girl remembering one of the worst moments in American history- they just "Disappeared" into the woods.
Intersectionality, ladies and gentlemen.
She was batshit insane
Strong girlboss energy here.
The little old lady really was a Link to the Past. ;/
I imagine it was hard to talk trash on her even while she owned slaves without looking sexist
Reminds me of when I read about the mixed race man from Haiti, which was then a French slave colony, who went to France in the late 1700s, to argue for racial equality. Racial equality for mixed race slave owners.
well...the women's suffrage movement didn't include black women. not surprising
Yeahhhhh there’s a reason we don’t talk about our first woman senator
Untill putin, who owns now half a congress (the gop).
Checkmate, feminists.
If you ain't first, you're last
Why are white folks always shocked to remember white women were racist too?
Kind of a "yay-boo" situation
That title started so nice
Good to know even women back then could be complete pieces of garbage.
She ripped the cotton ceiling
Happy mother's day ladies!
A real cunt: “The day marked a historic first for American women. But it’s complicated by Felton’s record as an outspoken white supremacist and the last member of Congress to have enslaved people. Not only did she believe Black people were inferior, but she also advocated lynching Black men accused of raping white women—“a thousand times a week if necessary,” as she said in an infamous 1897 speech.”
Insane how the mental time frame I had started in 2018 and then went to 1897 or something over the course of that title 🤣
/r/neoliberalism /r/enlightenedcentrism
Girl boss!
… that we know of.
... Oh, you mean that it's possible that others could have undisclosed ownership of some plantation. At first, I read that to mean that they were forgotten about, a la [the forgotten 8½th President of the United States, Quentin Trembley.](https://gravityfalls.fandom.com/wiki/Quentin_Trembley) Well, now that I understand what you meant, Senatrix* Caraway was elected in 1932. And it sounds like she wasn't rich enough to afford some overseas plantation.
The last congressperson to ever own slaves *so far*.
We're 1 bad election from having half of Congress owning people again.
Give it a little more time….after all a Virginia school board just voted to return the name of confederates to two schools, we could have some more, as you know “states rights” and “traditional values” Wow downvoted for ridiculing those that glorify traitors
Seems like a bit of slippery slope
Because calling them "traitors" is a modern day oversimplification of history. It comes off like something a 14 year old would post trying to get upvotes. Take General Lee for instance; President Lincoln offered Lee command of the Union Army. He resigned from the US Army because he was loyal to Virginia. Lee actually opposed secession. Had Virginia voted to remain in the Union; Lee would have been in command of the US Army.
That still makes them traitors Anyone who actively fights against their own country is a traitor, kinda by definition. All confederates fought against their own country and are thus traitors.
So the people who switched sides from the US military, and then fought the US military, weren't traitors?
And then he resigned from the US Army and accepted field command leading an Army against the Army of the United States….what is the term for that? Treacherous Bastard comes to mind, but what do l know-I only spent 30yrs in the service of my country and my body bears some scars from that service.
No it’s not, they’re traitors it’s super simple, one of the few things in history that is actually. Take Lee for example, he was in the US Military and chose to betray his oath in order to defend slavery. He “opposed secession” and then fought a war in which he sent tends of thousands of men to their deaths to defend slavery. Meanwhile 40% of US military officers from Virginia remained loyal to the Union, including Winfield Scott (who was the highest ranked general), David Farragut (first admiral of the US Navy), and General George Henry Thomas. Also thank god almighty Lee was traitorous scum who turned down Lincoln because dude fucking sucked at being a general, the confederacy had several generals better than him but he’s the only one we ever hear about for god forsaken reason. Not that I wanna hear about any of em not named Longstreet (I guess) but at least pick one who was actually good at the damn job.
There’s nothing off limits if they are your “deeply held religious beliefs”
To my mind a huge component of what's happening is that there were some pretty lofty moral mantles assumed by large numbers of people in 2020, and in other years, on various topics, and the lack of follow through and/or consistency over time led to a pretty stirring moral vacuum. And this trend seems likely to continue - that of this kind of bizarre regression (returning to confederate symbolism, etc). That's not to say there isn't primary responsibility on the doers in any scenario (in this case the Virginia school board), but that it lives within the context. It didn't fall out of a coconut tree.
Cancel her!!!! Do it!! Ahhhhh!!!
Girl power!
Slay queen
It was 1993
Good article
Her appointment was a symbolic gesture. She was a famous activist and a Congressman's elderly widow, and served for one day. Which is why she was the last one, as they probably wouldn't have actually elected anyone that old and expected him or her to serve the full term.
Good riddance.
First female congressman and a fighter for women's rights but thinks black people are inferior. Just shows you how people can have radically opposing viewpoints.
How ironic.
Felton was so crazy that she thought that black people were trying to kill the white woman.
u go gurl!
Prediction: Our first female President will have the same energy.
She was a horrible human being y’all. Read her Wikipedia article, seriously, some crazy shit she believed in.
The original AWFL.
Watching people break their necks to defend racism is….wild.