Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Thank you Thom Hartman for your perspective on the Marissa Johnson diatribe [View all]BumRushDaShow
(131,145 posts)146. Ask Ida B. Wells-Barnett about those women you cite
She had to do the same thing over 100 years ago because so-called "progressive" white women back then didn't get it either.
Perhaps one of Wells-Barnett's most important stands occurred at the March 3, 1913, National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) parade in the nation's capital. NAWSA was the national umbrella organization for state suffrage affiliates. Its history dated to 1890 when the National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association merged their forces and resources. The primary goal was to enfranchise women. But, NAWSA did not always embrace all women. The southern white women encouraged to seek membership in NAWSA adhered to the same white supremacy ideology that their men championed. Dependence on southerners for the passage of full suffrage rights for women muffled any opposition that NAWSA might have harbored to the usurpation of the social, economic, and political rights that blacks gained during the Reconstruction years. NAWSA refused to publicly denounce racial segregation, adopted a policy of expediency, and accepted Jim Crow within its own ranks. This left the door open for state affiliates to discriminate against black women. But Illinois suffragists had always embraced African-American women like Wells-Barnett and encouraged their participation in the state movement. The Women's State Central Committee, for example, utilized Wells-Barnett's lecturing skills and enlisted her aid in canvassing the state to encourage women to organize and develop political knowledge.
Despite the progressive attitude of white female Illinois suffragists, they refused to support her in the historic suffrage march in Washington. Carrying banners representing almost every state in the Union, thousands of parade marchers underscored the demand for universal female enfranchisement. Wells-Barnett was one of sixty-five enthusiastic delegates from Illinois and one of many black women who participated in the march. But the African-American women were instructed to gather as one unit at the end of the procession because the NAWSA forbade the integration of state affiliates in the march. Wells-Barnett refused to comply with the NAWSA demand and instead lined up with her state contingent. Grace Wilbur Trout, president of the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association and chairperson of the group, initially sanctioned the integrated group. But after meeting with a NAWSA official, she told the delegation that Wells-Barnett could not march with the state contingent. Further, if they failed to follow the instructions set forth by the NAWSA, the entire delegation would be denied participation in the march.
Angry at the blatant disregard for her rights as a woman and as an Illinois resident, Wells-Barnett refused to comply. It was time to confront racism within the suffrage movement. Southern women, she argued, had evaded the issues of race, and the NAWSA and its state affiliates had allowed it. She wanted the Illinois group to show the nation that it was progressive enough to stand against NAWSA's hypocrisy of oppressing women because of their race while embracing the idea of equality for all women at the ballot box. Her pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. So did the pleas of two white colleagues, Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319630.html
Despite the progressive attitude of white female Illinois suffragists, they refused to support her in the historic suffrage march in Washington. Carrying banners representing almost every state in the Union, thousands of parade marchers underscored the demand for universal female enfranchisement. Wells-Barnett was one of sixty-five enthusiastic delegates from Illinois and one of many black women who participated in the march. But the African-American women were instructed to gather as one unit at the end of the procession because the NAWSA forbade the integration of state affiliates in the march. Wells-Barnett refused to comply with the NAWSA demand and instead lined up with her state contingent. Grace Wilbur Trout, president of the Illinois Equal Suffrage Association and chairperson of the group, initially sanctioned the integrated group. But after meeting with a NAWSA official, she told the delegation that Wells-Barnett could not march with the state contingent. Further, if they failed to follow the instructions set forth by the NAWSA, the entire delegation would be denied participation in the march.
Angry at the blatant disregard for her rights as a woman and as an Illinois resident, Wells-Barnett refused to comply. It was time to confront racism within the suffrage movement. Southern women, she argued, had evaded the issues of race, and the NAWSA and its state affiliates had allowed it. She wanted the Illinois group to show the nation that it was progressive enough to stand against NAWSA's hypocrisy of oppressing women because of their race while embracing the idea of equality for all women at the ballot box. Her pleas, however, fell on deaf ears. So did the pleas of two white colleagues, Belle Squire and Virginia Brooks.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1996/iht319630.html
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
202 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thank you Thom Hartman for your perspective on the Marissa Johnson diatribe [View all]
Farmbrook
Aug 2015
OP
He used to post here, but was not treated very well by some people and I guess he
sabrina 1
Aug 2015
#44
Issues, you want to talk issues? Which issues do you disagree with Sen Sanders? XL Pipeline,
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#190
Was the "pushing around Bernie" act an official BLM act, or one by individuals
AikidoSoul
Aug 2015
#179
"Liberal white supremacy". At least get the 'offending" term right! Understand it rather than distorting the meaning? OK?
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#124
Yes, and once you have posted a comment based on the terribly faulty knowledge of others, you have to stick to it!
Fred Sanders
Aug 2015
#136
Yes the first condemnations were of the protestors. They clearly didn't want to talk only
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#191
As I recall, Pres Obama didn't have a use for Van Jones. But this discussion wasn't about
rhett o rick
Aug 2015
#194
Sorry but it's hard to get past asshole when the person is throwing racial epitaphs out.
RichVRichV
Aug 2015
#77
And he was responding to a Sanders supporter some of them are really turning me off
bigdarryl
Aug 2015
#4
Yes, Bravenak was explaining this all over the place.. and she wrote a letter to Thom Hartmann
Cha
Aug 2015
#91
how's the Palin button not relevant? it's hardly isolated from her other writings
MisterP
Aug 2015
#18
Here's the link/rant - thanks for the kind words and let's all work to help wake up white folks...
thomhartmann
Aug 2015
#21
Hey you! We have been absolutely overwhelmed in the AA forum. I'm sure you've seen the carnage
Number23
Aug 2015
#167
Oh girl, I saw that thread. That was my Laugh of the Freaking WEEK right there. I laughed my ass
Number23
Aug 2015
#171
Even if they were pure of heart, you have to admit the optics are bad for Bernie to be...
aikoaiko
Aug 2015
#43
I get the anger, the rage, the frustration, the fear expressed in every demonstration,
magical thyme
Aug 2015
#26
Oh Shit, DU is on the road to hating BLM........ too. Hartman isn't supposed to be interrupting that
uponit7771
Aug 2015
#28
Why anyone would refuse to listen to such intelligent people who are right most of the time...
betsuni
Aug 2015
#58
Most of the Internet has been "getting it" which is why these people calling #BLM "thugs" and
Number23
Aug 2015
#36
Only a fraud would say that #BLM was full of right wingers or working for Hillary
Number23
Aug 2015
#68
You are not proving or pointing out anything. And it boggles my mind that not only do you consider
Number23
Aug 2015
#72
Whatever you're trying to get out of this pointless exchange, I hope that you got it.
Number23
Aug 2015
#76
You are in a thread where Thom Hartmann is calling out people for attacking black people
Number23
Aug 2015
#86
I have no idea what you're talking about and honestly, have no interest in trying to
Number23
Aug 2015
#89
If calling this exchange dumb and pointless is "slapping a label on people" then consider that label
Number23
Aug 2015
#95
"I know you won't listen" Could not have made that more obvious if they were trying to
Number23
Aug 2015
#165
There is a long history of dirty tricks being pulled on the left wing...
killbotfactory
Aug 2015
#73
this might explain why some of his so called supporters keep comparing him to Donald Trump
JI7
Aug 2015
#196
Some will take this to heart.. and some will continue in their same rut.. looking for hidden
Cha
Aug 2015
#92
Thom Hartmann has soul and compassion.. I will not listen to anyone whining about him.
Cha
Aug 2015
#98
Thom Hartmann has been doing Lunch with Bernie before Sanders ever entered the race
Person 2713
Aug 2015
#130
I too am an admirer of Bravenak and I have express my admiration for her to her
notadmblnd
Aug 2015
#182
The answer to "Why Bernie?" is very simple, and requires no conspiracy theories
eridani
Aug 2015
#197
I think back to the suffragette movement & the old saying, "Well behaved women rarely make history."
CrispyQ
Aug 2015
#131
She is still a bratty, foolish, childish person who called a Jewish man a white supremacist.
phleshdef
Aug 2015
#145