Saturday 20 March 2010

Women's Rights Movement: What Took so Long?

I have often asked myself why it honestly took women so long to begin the movement toward achieving for themselves civil rights. I especially found this puzzling when I learned several years ago about the Antebellum period of the United States and the extent of social reform it brought about. Placing this desire for rights in context, however, it becomes apparent that women began in the efforts to achieve their rights because of the social expectations of the time. This desire for universal freedom also came about as a result of the influence of many others social reforms occurring at the time.

Because of incredible advances in technology in the period following the American Revolution, a certain expectation of social spheres began to develop within the domestic aspect of American society. Because less time had to be spent in working, women became increasingly confined to the home. They were expected to keep the home in order, as well as provide for the nourishment and learning of their children. The opinion that women were subordinate, even inferior to men began to arise. This emerging role for American women became known as the cult of domesticity.

Because of these defined ideals and roles of society, women had very little room to resist the domestic prison in which they increasingly found themselves. Women were expected to be agreeable, temperate, and helpful. Beginning and pursuing the course of achieving women’s suffrage was a revolution of women that emerged slowly but surely over time. As with any social reform, there always come back extremes through a broad range of opinions and ideals. The coming forth of the women’s rights movement of course led to feminists. The extremity of some of their ideals has still continued to act upon society and the way individuals are viewed even today.

Another significant factor contributing to the length of time it took for the women’s rights movement to really get rolling was all of the other social reforms taking place at the same time. Many women who would become women’s rights activists were first avid supporters and contributors of the Abolitionist movement. Much of the fervor for these social reforms came about as a result of the Second Great Awakening. It was a time of change, of revolutionary ideals where people came together in new realizations about society and the potential of their respective roles within it.

Though social reform such as the Abolitionist movement did contribute to a realization among women that they were also “slaves of society,” it may have also contributed to the delay of women’s suffrage efforts. Because slavery was such an encompassing issue during this period for the United States, it may be that the time was just not quite right for the women’s rights movement. People came to terms with the idea of redefining who was accepted as “free” individuals through a gradual process. For everything there is a season. It could be that the earlier social reforms that took place were just necessary steps on the path to the women’s rights movement.

I have always greatly admired the women who took the initiative to stand up and set forth revolutionary ideas that they felt strongly about. Women’s rights and independence was so completely against the socially acceptable norm of the time period. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and several others were phenomenal women, with unsurpassed strength and vision. As many of the other social reform groups of the time period, they fell to the “spirit of ’76.” They used the principles laid down by the divinely inspired Founding Fathers of this great nation to rethink and reform universal ideals of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Women were extremely significant contributors to social reform in the United States, and thus played a critical role in the shaping of our history, country, and the ideals upon which we are founded and stand for. I will forever be grateful for the strength, courage, and zeal of these truly amazing women.

Friday 12 March 2010

Armistad

I have always found the subject of slavery in America to be an incredibly sobering aspect of our history to study. It is a regrettable yet essential part of our history that can’t be ignored. Until watching the movie, Armistad, however, I had never heard of this slave uprising on a ship in the West Indies, leading to a significant Supreme Court Case.

Though it was fascinating to learn about this historical incident, I found the movie extremely valuable in its stirring portrayal of what the slave trade was really like. It’s one thing to read about it in text books, but quite another to watch actors really bring it to life. The way the Africans were chained, pushed around, whipped, and even killed, is absolutely abominable. They were treated worse than animals. It is beyond me to try and understand how anyone could consider a race of people as sub-human and treat them in such a horrific manner.

After examining one of those slave trips, like the Armistad, it is little wonder that so many Africans died on the journey to slavery. Way too many of them were cramped into very little living space, they were chained like animals, and given so very little food. If any of them showed any sign of illness or weakness, they were not given food, essentially condemning them to die. It was a barbaric scenario of survival of the fittest. I find it remarkable that so many were able to make it through the treacherous journey alive.

Africans were kidnapped from the happiness and security of their homes, often even by fellow Africans. They were ripped away from family, from their very lives to enter a living Hell of subjection to a group of people who saw themselves as superior. They were alone, frightened, and had no way of communicating to these strange, brutal barbarians. They contracted diseases and were provided with no care. The very world seemed to be against them, and it took extraordinary strength and courage to endure such pain and sufferings.

This movie opened my eyes even more to the reality of the slave trade and the conditions under which they were forced to suffer. Awareness is such an essential component of knowledge in any subject. Watching was a very sobering, yet extremely educational experience that I definitely value.

Thursday 4 March 2010

Federalist Paper #51

In his Federalist Paper 51, James Madison addresses the problem of how to maintain a balance of power in developing the government for the new nation of America. The first step, he emphasizes, is to accept the human dilemma: a desire for power and natural tendency for corruption. He then suggests two primary solutions which he goes on to explain in great detail. To maintain a balance of power in a government, it is necessary to have implement a system of checks and balances, and to hold repeated elections for the respective government positions of office.

The vernacular with which Madison delivers this argument astounds me. It is incredible how much time and energy he put into researching governments as thoroughly as possible. He wanted to be absolutely sure that our government would be created as one meant to last. It would need to be a government for the people, different from any system that had yet been established in any civilization. I love his observation that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” As this is definitely not the case, Madison then asserts that “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Primary control in this matter results from a dependence on the people, or the consent of the governed. The secondary control then becomes auxiliary precautions.

For a successful, balanced government, power must then be divided up and distributed. In order to accomplish this arduous task, it becomes necessary to use the fact that people desire power as an advantage. To preserve liberty, there must be separate and distinct exercise of different powers of government. Having thoroughly explained his argument, Madison then proceeds in this essay to suggest a system of government divided into three branches. The executive and legislative officials of their respective branches should be appointed by election. Judicial officials must be appointed by the executive powers, with the approval of the legislative body. Security against concentration of power in one department is accomplished by giving those administering in each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist the encroachments of the others. Thus, ambition is used to counteract ambition.

Judicial officials are appointed differently than executive and legislative, primarily because peculiar qualifications are essential due to the nature of the permanent tenure of the position. The most dangerous branch of the government is considered the legislative branch. This is because they have their hands in the pockets of the citizens, so to speak. In other words, their power to levy taxes makes it necessary to exert extra control upon this governmental branch. To accomplish this, Madison suggests dividing the legislature into two distinct governing bodies. These, of course, are the House of Representatives and the Senate. Frequent elections keep these officials on their toes and necessarily loyal and subject to the people.

Through these three separate branches of government set up as a system of checks and balances, Madison summarizes that “The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” I also appreciate that he emphasizes the importance that “In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.” In reading and understanding this paper, I was amazed and so grateful at the incredible feat the Founding Fathers accomplished in setting up the government of this great nation. It is also little wonder to me why James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution.