I just wanted to hop on and say that not all of us *knew* about how problematic the suffragette imagery is. I had NO idea until V's last video about it. I thought it was a symbol that we'd all been fighting for so long now, and we're still not done. Now I'm not sure how I feel about those images, and modern cosplayers, but I can't feel the same way as I did. And that's okay! As long as I'm always trying to improve my knowledge, and my own self. Thanks V! And Ora!
Well said. My grandmother was part of the original groups in the earlier 20th century & the was no one more embarrassingly classiest, to say nothing of haughty, as that woman who thought herself liberated: a person of the People. We ALL owe V a vote of thanks on this score.
i was the same way! as hard as it is to learn that you were wrong and doing something harmful, it's what makes learning and growing such an important part of life
I had no idea either. Even though I'm not from the USA, so my knowledge was very surface-level, considering what is happening with race discussions being forbidden in schools in some places, I'm not surprised that not many people get that information unless specifically looking for it, so very important set of videos 😘
History is complex. Were they smart to use the fragile woman trope to their advantage? Yes. Was it problematic as all get out? Also yes. If we could stop treating the people of the past as either heroes or villains we might be able to make a dent in some of our current problems. So, thanks for this.
Yeah, one of my fave costubers (Jimmy the Welsh Viking) is always ranting humorously about NUANCE, which I love 😆 I feel like that's the first thing that gets lost when we look back at historical people & events? (Along with context!) And so we are left with these very b+w, oversimplified images which of course don't gel with real life. That process then leads to this weird unhealthy nostalgia for a supposedly "simpler" time... It wasn't, we've just lost a lot of the details in looking back!
As a kid in a multicultural household, I loved Disney’s Pocahontas. She was a native princess, so I could be too! Then I got old enough to want to dig into her story some more and learned the horrifying true story that Disney white washed into a love story for kids. Now, even though I love the music, any time I hear it or see costumes for it I have a visceral negative reaction. I would love for Disney to use the Pocahontas platform, one of the original MMIW, to support MMIW today.
Ponderful actually recently posted an excellent video about the early suffrage movement in the UK and how it failed activists like Sylvia Pankhurst, who advocated for and worked tirelessly to oppose war, fascism, and to provide mutual aid to working class women, single mothers, Jewish women, women of colour, sex workers, queer women, and other women who didn't fit the respectable ideals of her contemporaries - including her own mother, Emmeline Pankhurst. I highly recommend giving it a watch.
Not exactly historical costuming but sort of related: I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about folk dress as well. How some styles of cultural dress or folk symbols have been co-opted by white nationalist/supremacist groups. While some folk costumes have been derived whole cloth for nationalist movements to create a sense of homogeneity, a lot of them have not. It is also a problem in some pagan groups, where cultural dress or iconography has been taken for nefarious means for their historical link to what the folkists see as ‘European’ culture. So while those symbols are now associated with nazism, they simultaneously are still important religious symbols to some (non-white supremacist) folks. I apologize if this isn’t clear but I think the connection in my head is about how some historical dress was created for the purpose or in tandem with racist causes, others were not but _were_ later appropriated by racists and have become linked with them in popular consciousness. Think like Norse runes and other Norse Heathen iconography like mjolnir, the valknut, etc. that can be important religious symbols for some practitioners but are inextricably linked with neo-nazis to other people. Idk, I am not suggesting for you to discuss it but I do think your thoughts on the subject would be interesting, since you are typically very thorough, nuanced, and empathetic. Your conversation just kind of got me thinking about this as well.
I am an American mutt and of the seven cultures (plus American) I come from the only one that I had exposure to was Polish through my half-Polish Grandmom. I decided I had to have a traditional Polish folk costume (a Nationalist creation in response to the dissolution of the Polish state) as seen at the Polish American festivals we attended in my youth. But then I acknowledged that I am not actually of the Polish culture and decided to use the silhouette and then customize the cloth patterns and embroidery to represent the symbols of where my ancestors came from. This excites me because I am using the inspiration of these cultures to create something that is as unique as me while avoiding using what I am not connected to (like religious symbols). Wish me luck 🍀
I remember in high school our biology teacher started the course about evolution with a capsion from a 1920's biology book. It said that basically black people (using the n-word) were lower lifeforms or something similar... Like people couldn't really get away from that idea as it was something that school taught and everyone "knew" as fact. My grandmother that is over 80 always marvels about how non white people are just as humane and good and all the things we white people are. We are finnish so she was well into adulthood when she actually saw a non white person for the first time and she learned that what her school taught her was bull.
I had no idea that clothing from the turn of the century and before could represent such awful ideas. I am 62 and while I never dressed in any clothing from these time periods, I know I probably would have innocently done so because I like the way they look. I would have never thought "I need to research these clothes to make sure sure I'm NOT sending the wrong message"! I cannot thank you BOTH enough for making me (and I'm sure many others) aware of this. I am definitely sharing this post and will definitely be sharing this information verbally as well. Keep up the great history lessons ladies! ❤️❤️❤️❤️
You're so welcome! It makes me really happy to see people coming into the historical costuming world with this in mind. You can enjoy the dresses and understand the history at the same time!
The clothing from now represents awful ideas and practices too. And I think that because we absolutely cannot get away from it, we should engage with it. Whether that's historical clothing (plus all the impacts that history has on us now), or modern clothing and trying to fix society however we can.
I'm getting on in years, too, and I've learned so much from watching TH-cam. Having people patiently educate me about things like White Male Privilege, Trans Rights and the Racism Inherent in Inanimate Objects has been a real help. 👍
Very very helpful conversation. I really appreciate hearing a wide variety of voices on this topic. Coincidentally I was talking with a coworker over lunch today about how incremental change at an "acceptable" pace (according to those in the majority) will never be fast enough and will never go far enough to address the actual needs of those who are already marginalized by the system. It's hard to feel like we're getting traction in the conversations, especially when talking with people who still feel pressured to "act right" (as you both so astutely acknowledged toward the end of the video)... but I have to trust that perhaps each small gentle conversation will lead to transformation.
Learning all this is scary how so much we are not taught. We do not spend enough time just talking about how history is not perfect. We people who are not rich are treading water just getting through the day while others with power are trying to blame us for not doing enough, carbon footprint or doing charity.
And unfortunately, that’s what they are banking on. I’m not an alarmist, but the entire system is rigged so those who are working regular jobs (or two or more) just to pay the bills are at a distinct disadvantage. Cheaper food is often the most unhealthy and health insurance is expensive. You have to have time to do further research because media typically provides biased perspectives but because of the situation, fewer and fewer ppl have that kind of time. We are not provided a full education with respect to history, neither modern nor antiquated. Large corporations, politicians and media outlets hope that the population stays ignorant of what is genuinely happening behind the shiny veneer. Now luckily, ppl are becoming wise to the advertising tricks and bs tactics used by these entities so hopefully in the future, we as a population will hold them accountable. (Note: I’m speaking of the USA specifically)
Sitting with your own imperfections and biased thinking is hard and sucks. Doing performative behaviors and getting a pat on the head is easier. The first on is more important.
This is a deeply important and often overlooked issue when it comes to the history of suffrage. In some of my own research into this history in Canada is that the famous five, the most well known and documented suffragettes here, were varying shades of racist and deeply ableist, some wrote pamphlets on their views on eugenics. I've interpreted a suffragette for museum programs and this history features heavily into my interpretation and people are shocked almost 100% of the time it comes up. Like you both mentioned, clothing has such an impact in the messages that it sends. Historical clothing can be such a good tool for educating in a museum setting imo and it is so so important to be responsible when doing costuming. I agree wholeheartedly, this was a great addition to the series!
Ever since I read The Dawn of Everything, I can't think about the Seneca Falls convention without thinking about how the Iroquois Confederacy, of which the Seneca people are a part, enshrines women's place in government in its founding document. If you asked a Seneca woman in the year 1700 whether women should be involved in politics, she'd look at you like you were asking whether the sky should be blue. The conversation happening at the Seneca Falls Convention was CENTURIES behind. Our American political imaginations are so limited!
Thanks for producing this content. Did the BIPOC suffragettes have any specific markers or colors? Would it be feasable to create modern symbols as a flag to indicate there's more to it. I guess like an additional rosette, as a conversation starter. I'm thinking about the updated pride flag, to be very clear that your values are intersectional.
Hey, a really good video including discussion of modern image portrayal without critical thinking is Cheney McKnight’s video with Abby Cox. Abby talks about why she chose a plantation wedding and it’s really great! Also, the peacock dress is the garment that context changed my whole perception of not only the gown but the entire haute couture industry.
Thank you for another interesting history lesson. I just have a point about the background music in this video. It could be my sensory issues, but the music seemed louder than in your other videos, and I sometimes had difficulty filtering out the dialogue. You’ve encouraged me to look more into the British suffragette movement to see where they may have gone off the rails.
Yes, it's a shame that when such important information was being communicated, that the increasing level of the music was drowning you out. I really thought more than once it was an indication the video coming to an end. We really don't need music in this situation and certainly not sound effects either.
Thanks for this discussion; you two succinctly expressed a few things I've been learning recently. I've been delving into the folk dress of all my ancestors and trying to reconcile the fact that some of them (Austrians) press-ganged the others (Romani in Romania), and then another set (Germans) came in and colonized them later. And then of course they all came to Canada.... It's rough.
With this era, it is important not to confound racism with Class. In the US, until the 1920 enumeration, European ethnicities were labeled RACES. This certainly was the case in the 1900 census. Thus, the Irish, Italians, & the Poles were considered of a different race than the Educated English. Certainly this confounded money with the ethnic origins of immigrants. Still does. My point is: when entitled white women of the suffrage movement disdained poor Irish, Italian, Jewish, or Polish women, were they racists or classists or both in their own terms/thinking
There's a good deal of overlap. It's important to note as carefully and as clearly as possible what's happening when we know. When there is question, we should look at that as well. Race and class tend not to stand on their own, which is why intersectionality is a fascinating framework for analysis.
It's naive at best to try to separate class and race; a larger percentage of Black (and Brown) people are poor now (aka, "lower class") because of the racism the USA was founded on. The USA government gave land and stakes to white people that they took from Indigenous people, and when they were forced to give land to Black people, they immediately devised ways to steal it back, even when dressed as 'legal purchases".
History we don’t study and know about, but when we don’t, we repeat it. Unfortunately it’s happening again, and again. Why do people have to suffer before everyone realizes that we are all human. We all have a part to play. Speak out and learn, then teach. Do your best to help everyone move forward. Thank you for this. You’re both doing at great job at helping everyone do so.
I'm loving learning so much on your videos. There's so much of the past that is deliberately ignored or buried (especially by those that it makes look bad!). Having/hearing these conversations and getting facts out is incredible. Keep up the good work.
thank you so much! It always surprises me when my videos are how people learn about things (given I'm not an academically trained educator) but this is why I keep making them.
Thank you very much for this video. My greater hope is that people will be able to pause and give themselves a moment before reacting out of defensiveness. It's okay to have complicated feelings about complex matters. We need to keep learning and refining what we know, and keep questioning.
Well said! We have to become more comfortable with feeling uncomfortable, it’s an enlightening experience that allows one to grow more empathetic (to others as well as themselves).
this is the most nuanced and well-thought out conversation about addressing our history I've ever seen. Most people either mythologize it and treat historical figures like gods or our past is ontologically evil and the people in the past were like demons. Ironically, the past is the same as the present, and probably the future: it's messy, complicated, multi-faceted and can never be truly understood in one lifetime. I think that's why people care so much about history, there is no one "true" way to interpret history, as long as you have the most accurate view of it and use evidence to justify whatever belief you hold. Anti-racism must be a constructive thing, in contrast to the modern definitions of whiteness (as an "absence of race" that must be mantained or it will be lost, there is no anti-racist definition of whiteness), if we are to tear down the old oppressive structures, we must have something new that ensures equity for everyone in its place or, like what Ora said: you'll just have more nasty loopholes. one of the best videos you ever put out V!
I think there is an anti-racist definition of whiteness: "White" people are a coalition of tribes who agreed to give up their tribal distinctiveness in return for lasting political, economic, and social power. People who currently identify as "white" would have historically been counted among a number of European tribes (including, but not limited to, Saxons, Anglos, Celts, Gauls Castilians, Aragons, Roman, Irish, etc.); but at some point, abandoned their tribal distinctiveness in return for inclusion in the power structure created by "whites". That said, it's a new thing. While there's been some work in academia going back a little longer (mostly looking at how people became white), I've only heard people talking about whiteness in this way going back maybe 10 years, probably less.
@@cristoferwolz-romberger3835 I’m not really sure if that’s the best definition. Think of this, Obama has a white mother and a black father. He’s called America’s first black President, he can’t call himself a white president. But by all accounts, he’s equally “white” and “black”, literally 50/50, but white people would never accept that. It’s the same with, say, European jews or the Irish, sometimes they’re white and sometimes they’re not, their relationship to whiteness is fluid, based on how threatened white supremacy is. That’s why there’s no such possibility for “black genocide” the same way that white supremacists imagine “white genocide”, because whiteness can be lost from a family lineage, but blackness can never be lost or it’s very difficult to distance yourself from blackness before you’re considered “white” again by the hegemony. Hence why the modern definition of whiteness as “an absence of race” because there is always this present dichotomy of “pure whiteness” and “corrupting ethnicity” in white supremacist thought.
history in context is so important!!❤ thank you! And i am so glad that we are having these conversations in the historical sewing area! i particularly remember when i first heard about this. Definitely the reason why i stopped using any suffragette accessory in historical costuming and started to look into the womenmovement from my country. Which unfortunately also didn't particularly encourage POC topics at the time or were trying to abolish the situation. entirely but at least there are no recorded racist reasons or similar themes for getting the vote by putting the other minorities even further down as the english speaking suffragette movement had.
Thanks both again for a brilliant video. Particularly to sit with your discomfort and it will lead you in the right direction, rather than avoiding it.
thank you SO MUCH for this video!! it answered all of the questions i had following the previous video on the suffragettes. i especially appreciated the section at 12:23, which could not have better expressed my position on the matter; the feminist façade of the suffragette movement aligns with my morals, but when you look at the truth of the movement, it's uncomfortable as the morals i was unknowingly representing don't align with my own, which made me feel terrible about myself. again, thank you both so much for such invaluable information and perspectives!
It irritates me when people see a TERF SWERF or racist feminist and just say "they aren't a real feminist" and go on their merry way without a care in the world cause it doesn't affect them. Our Tupuna (ancestors/grandparents) have over the last century had to start their own movements because whyte suffragettes/feminists treated them awfully, ignored them or left them behind.
This was amazing, and the conversation about listening to discomfort can be applied to so many situations. Also, I wish people would engage with these uncomfortable ideas rather than go for the spectacle of appearing to be moral. I'll be saving this video to share everywhere, for all those situations that it applies to outside of historical costuming.
"Died by accident" If you're talking about the woman in the UK that was run over by the horse trying to stop a race (Emily Davidson). She died by suicide. There was a program about forensically examining the footage and it was shown she deliberately walked/leapt in fromt of the horse of the Prince of Wales. The clip and examination of the video is here on TH-cam as "Clare Balding's secrets of a suffragette - Epsom Darby Festival - Channel 4 Racing".
Interesting book about the UK suffragettes is "Death in ten minutes" by Fern Riddell. I listened to the audio book, which was read by the author. This book DID touch on the classism and racism, a little. The main "heroine" was white, but was also an Actress - which back then was considered almost the same thing as a prostitute! So, though she was an important "field agent", she was never embraced by the organization. Another "Heroine" was an Indian woman from an Indian Royal Family. Apparently she got quite a good amount of Press for them. What I thought was interesting was how the women "in the field" were risking their lives (a shocking amount of bombs, & back then that wasn't the most stable thing to do!) And, the upper echelons were having tea and "whitewashing" the history and the violence. Lots of the women were arsonists, bomb makers & such, and then were quietly forgotten. I think one thing that SHOULD have been mentioned in your video was the force feeding that the suffragettes suffered through. I had a hard time listening to it. Quite barbaric & Savage. A complex topic, for sure. Missed the first video, will have to check it out.
It would be interesting to have videos (probably would take more than one, of reasonable length) about how working men's work clothes (thinking jeans and t-shirts) became essentially the uniform of the whole baby boomer generation, and beyond. My last day of junior high school in 1969 was the first day girls were permitted to wear trousers of any kind to school, and how huge a moment that was. Before that, skirts, stockings (before pantyhose), low-heeled shoes; after, jeans everywhere, every day.
Adding to the Suffregettes were racist, in Britain some of them were also classist. They wanted rights for upper class women. Thet were not bothered about the working classes, like my family. Thankfully universal sufferage was brought into law in the UK. If you can please use your vote to support marginalised people where you live.
As requested (sic) Waving to moderators and thanking you folk for your work to keep comments and conversations respectful 🖐👏 Thank you V, For saying the things that need to be said
Quick distillation of complexities, but overall good discussion. A minor point of clarification: in the US, they used the term "suffragist," as "suffragette" was used to diminish the cause of women suffrage altogether. In England, they used the term "suffragette."
I honestly had no idea that The Suffragettes were racist. Which, is admittedly kind of ridiculous. Had I thought for two seconds about time and place and all the other issues surrounding that particular movement it would not have been a difficult awareness to come to. But without reason to believe or any indication of anything distasteful going on in the movement there was no reason to think about it. So I guess this whole thing has left me with a few thoughts I want to get out of my head: 1. Thank you for making me aware of this being a thing. As I said before I would have never known because there wasnt ever reason for me to ask that question. 2. This highlights yet another glaring omittance in our education standards. The Suffragette movement was always taught as a beautifully noble and fantastically virtuous movement. Never in school was this ever brought up. And finally, 3. Sadly, as grateful as I am to learn this information, because ignorance is the state in which evil gets to thrive. I am also very aware of a profound sadness at the loss of what I believed to be true having become educated on the reality of the movement. That being said, cognitive dissonance, realizing that we shouldn't always meet our heroes, and the acceptance that we are better off in the long run when we realize that Santa Clause isn't real is all a part of the human condition, and I will strive to never disparage it, despite how much it really does hurt at times.
Thankyou for this video. The information about the Suffragettes was extremely interesting. Events from time past have to be viewed in context. Many 0f the Suffragettes were probably focused on getting the vote. My family are originally from Scotland where they have had many skirmishes and wars with England. Wearing tartan was banned after the Battle at Cullodon between the Scots and the English. The Scots' language (Gaelich) was also banned and they were required to speak English. We still celebrate being able to wear tartans again with a church service called the"Kirkin' o' the Tartan". Gaelich is being taught in some schools in Scotland. There are differences of opinion to this day between the Scots and the English about various aspects of these topics. Learning more about the history of times past is really fascinating and knowing as much as we can about the past is compelling.
THANK YOU for filming and sharing this discussion! This is a subject that deserves the attention you are giving it. You're absolutely right, too, that any garment from any time period can have a political agenda, but being informed about the history is what is important about changing the future.
If you were to redesign the outfits into a non racist version to a more inclusive version. What colours would you use instead? I’m going to try this for my fashion history portfolio so not only talking about the suffragettes but also the true history of it. I hope to redesign the outfits for the movement.
Very important point: mutual aid is something you DO, not something you GIVE. Mutual aid is NOT charity, it's an act with no thought of any benefit whatsoever. It's also relationship building and a building of community. Mutual aid is integral to Anarchist praxis and it's much deeper than "give to this person", it's a whole complex relationship that is something you do on an ongoing basis. You don't do mutual aid like charity. Mutual aid is ongoing and complex. Mutual aid networks are meant to create a place outside of capitalism and especially commodity production and if you don't understand the deeply Anarchist origins of mutual aid, you will fail and simply revert back to charity with radical language.
I taught high school social studies for 16 years and not once in any of the textbooks I taught from did they address that the suffragette movement was racist. I’m only discovering now after I left public education about the realities of what we taught. I never even thought about it. I’m a total nerd, but in the past focused on different areas. Thanks for another excellent video!
In terms of clothing changed by context, there’s Indigenous American regalia. While the costume community uses the word “costume” freely, it’s a huge insult to call our clothes that. It brings to mind Halloween outfits cobbled from lazy stereotypes and cultural theft. On a personal note, some ethnic groups have clothing history dating back centuries or millennia. My tribe is made of several diaspora coming together elude and fight against our colonizers/enslavers. Our clothing history is comparatively young.
This was so interesting. I've never really thought about the meaning behind the clothes we wear. When I look at historical dresses, I've always looked at them for the visual aesthetic. It definitely changes how I'll look at historical dress. Also, this needs to be included in our education. They never bothered to point out that the women's suffrage movement was only meant for white women.
So, basically the suffragettes were hypocrites! Yes, it certainly was okay that they were fighting for their own rights, but what about the black women (women of color), or fighting against the abuse/exploitation of children, (by parents).
15:00 I find it very interesting that you brought up the series The Nevers because I remember that tea party scene and remember thinking that they did such a good job with showing what abelism is really like, and then it turns out the bad guys of the series are the mentally ill girl trope (who is also the first to die trope) and the person in a wheelchair trope and I was disgusted and stoped watching after that because I didn't want to deal with that amount of abelism. How did they get it so right and so wrong in 3? Episodes.
I absolutely love the information given in this video! I do have some feedback about the audio. The 'background' music gets very loud and distracting/overwhelming that I could not finish watching it. Making the video not accessible for me with the sensory processing challenges my autism brings. Which is a shame. I think everyone should be able to watch this, since the information is so important.
Thank you V, Ora and your mods! Fantastic. Just one bit of feedback, though it could be due to my ADHD: the background music varies a lot in volume and at times is quite loud. The changes are tricky to ignore. But otherwise, amazing! More importantly: this is stuff we all should know - and we all need to reflect on our own actions and beliefs, not just judge the past. Because we will be the past.
Seems like a great convo, and I'm now following Ora, but unfortunately I had to stop watching the video halfway through as the music was just too much, especially while trying to hear and process the conversation as well. I'm neurodivergent with sensory issues, so it is possible I'm the only one who had the problem, but I thought I'd let you know, especially as I usually don't have any problems with with videos in that regard. Thank you for all the work you put in! Edit: I started watching Ora's critical race theory video, but had the same problem with the increasingly dramatic background music 😞
everyone in my generation knows what a nazi is--our older relatives fought them, so everyone i know would bristle if we saw someone dressed that way. but we never learned in school what the suffragette colors meant or that the movement was racist. so it's sad but not surprising that people might pick up the aesthetic without any understanding of the meaning. thank you for reminding us that it's up to us to research the backstory of the historical fashions we might want to wear.
I dont know which way around it went, but the ancient greek "democracy" was connected with the colour white and purity, because they were seen as the ancestors of the british, german, french etc. who wanted to see their history and present in this white, enlightened facet since the Renaissance. That way everyone was made to believe that ancient sculpture, architecture and clothing was also mainly white. Consequently, until today people deliberately and/or subsonciously view white as a neutral, clean colour, think of hospitals, white linen sheets, underwear, house facades or the white polo shirts of the mega rich. In colonial tanzania for example the missionaries swapped the colourful and patterned home made clothes of the tanzanians with white, long shirts, so that they were dressed "modestly" and with maybe the most important colour of christian "enlightened" people. When massive traces of coulour was found on ancient sculpture it was scruffed off, because I believe that the ancient dresses reminded them of the colourful clothing of the people they were colonizing and looking down upon. What want to say is that the colour white is not neutral and pure, it is in my opinion used to substitute peoples original cultural preferences and traditions, and to eliminate any sparks of other colours and cheerful patterns that stand for anyone who cannot or does not want to fit into this white normative society. All that is in part done through a false recreation of the ancient greek and roman, "classical" past.
The only connection between (Roman) democracy and the colour white I know of that actually dates from antiquity is found in the word “candidate”, which refers to the extra-white, chalk-scrubbed togas of those who were standing for election.
In the Uk the suffragette colours were green white and purple. No gold. Not to say there was no racist or classist elements but we had a different story line from the States.
There is a dress in a UK collection, known as The Peacock Dress. This was created by the House of Worth for Lady Curzon who was the wife of the Viceroy of India at the turn of the 19th century. It is heavily beaded with peacock feathers over most of the surface, but over time the colour of the beads has faded or tarnished. Cathy Hay, a historical costume TH-camr from the UK, wanted people to see it as it would have looked when it was made and undertook to recreate it. The project was a huge piece of work, and she in fact started to work with an Indian embroidery company to reproduce the heavy beading that covered the dress. She was unaware of the controversy surrounding it until she was called out on the matter. The original work done in India was performed in horrifying conditions of poverty in which workers were kept in poverty conditions and treated almost as slaves. It was all part of the oppression of people by the British empire, which has a history of incredible brutality and theft from India which is too little taught in Britain. When she heard about the criticism, Cathy looked into it more, and decided that yes, it was ignorant and arrogant of her to undertake her project without researching the background more. She was clearly shocked not only by what she learned but also by her own ignorance. She still got criticism, though I think her approach to the matter was courageous. Her approach to the Indian company and their embroiderers was very respectful, but she was treated as if they were an insignificant part of the project in her mind. In the end she shared a video in which she talked about the painful process she followed when she was challenged and did more research into the political and racist background of the piece she had wanted to recreate. She was criticised for that too, as if the pain of her own process was an indulgence instead of very real. There's a huge 'movement' for us to destroy works of art and other symbols which 'glorify' shameful history - though I don't think anyone has suggested this for the Peacock dress. On the contrary I think these symbols should be retained, but the information provided on the displays should include all aspects of their history. There is a statue in Edinburgh erected to Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, who was an incredibly powerful politician. He also regarded slavery as important for Britain, and opposed the abolition of the slave trade, delaying it for 15 years. There are other significant problems with the actions of Henry Dundas, which are completely glossed over. The current Viscount is claiming that Henry Dundas was an abolitionist. Sir Geoff Palmer has been campaigning to including the criticism - which is a matter of historical facts - on the displays around the statue, so that the proper history is fully recognised recognised.. On the hill above the village where I was. raised is a monument to Lord Stafford the first Earl of Sutherland, who was responsible for the brutal removal from the land of thousands of people who had lived there and crofted for hundreds of years, paying rent plus service in the from of labour and military enlistment to the regiments for the area. The landscape still bears the scars. It is beautiful and wild and empty, and is called the last wilderness in Europe, but for me, love it as I do, it is full of pain too. This monument is controversial in the county - it's a symbol of brutality, erected by a tax on the people, but masquerades as a voluntary tribute to am "improver". The history wasn't told in schools until the 60s, though I know just how much it was known through actual local memory. There was at one time a movement to have it removed or destroyed, opposed by many who were fond of it. I don't know why others had that fondness, but though I don't share it, I knew that when I saw it from all those miles away, I was nearly home. I was always opposed its removal, but not because it was a symbol of home - instead I wanted the plaques and notices to include not only the official line sanctioned by the current Countess and family, but add the actual facts and details. People were killed, thousands of families were removed, and either placed on infertile land, deliberately too small to support a family (so they either performed unpaid labour for the landlord), transported to the coasts to subsist by fishing (in which they had no skill base or knowledge and again, many starved); or transported to Canada and the US. There is a reason why so many white people in the northern Americas claim Scottish roots, and that fact in itself speaks volumes about the numbers who were transported. The story is that the Earl paid for their journey and they should be grateful: In fact many either died on the crossing, or were lost at sea - and those who made it had to pay back the cost of their crossing, usually as indentured servants. I say - keep the works of art - but tell the whole story. The fact that those statues, dresses, or sashes were made and praised is as much a part of the facts as all the real political significance is. It is as much a part of the oppression and of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression. Its presence is important and should be used to educate us. It should stay to remind us to scrutinise those we are told to admire, to find their weaknesses and vices - BEFORE they are sanctified.
Thank you for this video. Now I have to research how this applies to my home country (im not from the US so the movement was different here - but how different and what they exactly fought for I dont know yet) I liked your example with the uniform. Wearing those specific uniforms (and symbols) isn't allowed here in Germany for a very good reason - but even if it wasnt I would never ever think it would be a good idea to wear one, especially not while visiting places like former labor camps (or worse) or museums about that topic. Sorry that I couldnt watch it when you released it. Usually I watch youtube videos in bed to sleep better but I felt that topic needed a bit more focus then sleepy me trying to doze off ^^;
regarding body hair and fashion marketing... in england and northern europe based cultures, the emphasis was to seperate yourself from "animals" the more distant you were from "animals" the more evolved. (this is why the comparison of PoC to apes was used so very much) white skin, and a lack of body hair, was used to "prove" you were more evolved- as were exaggerated sexual dimorphism (men had facial hair- women did not, for example) when they first tried to market leg and armpit shaving in south america it was slow go-ing because the indigenous people (and mixed race therefore ) had less body hair than the 'pure' spanish women. ergo, the body hair was a symbol of their racial purity and superiority (ie, proof that they were SPANISH, and not indigenous) turning the usual marketing upside down.
As I understand, in the United Kingdom , the color scheme was green white and violet, rather than using gold . From I have heard the colors were chosen to allude to the anagram of GWV , for give women the vote. I hadn't heard until now about why their American counterparts had using gold instead of green , and it being motivated by white supremacy. I shall research the matter further though.
Maybe the way to engage with the racism of the Suffragette outfit is the change the sash. Change the gold strip (and the purple strip if it also have problematic origins, I couldn't find anything about it with a quick google). I'm taking inspiration from the Progress Pride flag, which added a brown strip and a black one as a show of solidarity after George Flyod. Maybe change the slogan to be more appropriate for whatever occasion you plan to wear it to. The outfit is distinctive enough that people will recognize it for what it is.
I think about this kind of stuff so much as a white SCAdian with a persona from a non-white culture. I’d love to see you explore that specifically in a video sometime, but I’m just so curious about questions like: - At what point is historical recreation cultural appreciation, and at what point is it cultural appropriation? - What is the responsible way to celebrate and engage with a historical culture as someone whose ancestors not only weren’t part of that culture but in fact may have been responsible for colonising or even exterminating many people of that culture? - And, unrelated to historical recreation but related to these kinds of questions: is it cultural appropriation to deliberately change one’s accent to match that of one’s ancestral country as a way of acknowledging and connecting with one’s family history? So many questions
Rachel, did you know that Ora Lin already has a video on Cultural Appropriation regarding clothing, where they discuss many of these topics? I recommend you go check it out, it's a good one!
Great video. My only issue is the myth that POC have more body. Every study I’ve seen suggest Caucasian people have the highest hair body density. Which is kinda irrelevant but as a black person who grew up around white people who had to be taught that I didn’t have a tail, blue blood, all over body hair or skin like leather. Ignorance is different from racism and most people are open to learning I’ve found.
Hi V, I love your content and the ideas dicussed in this video. However, the music in the background is too loud and I find it really distracting when trying to listen and process both Ora and your thoughtful words. I hope this piece of critism can help in future videos especially those which have more of a video essay feel or are a insightful conversation like this one.
I'd write an entire essay on my feelings on this, but I will sum it up and say "Thank you V and Ora for putting in words the feelings of my heart". Sufferagism should be for all oppressed peoples, not just privileged white women. We are all human and we must all be equal. 🖖🏼
Thank you….for all of this. It’s been documented for hundreds of years how much danger anyone who isn’t POC intentionally put themselves in if they ever aligned themselves with us. It may not end in lunching on the scale it once was but financial lynching? YES! You put yourselves in harms way still. I see y’all ❤
As a woman who grew up in the American Mid-Atlantic states during the 80s, I have struggled my whole life for an ungendered society. Growing up in an all-female household there was no room for gender roles and all the ‘good’ careers (well paying) were held by men. In the age of shoulder pads and the trope of sleeping your way to the top, I railed against femininity and was a proud tomboy nerd. So when trans-women discussions reached my suburban eyes I felt gut punched that these ppl were doubling down on the very hyper-feminine gendering I had lived my life trying to break. It took creators like Contrapoints and a new generation of women reclaiming femininity as strength to calm my fears of back-sliding into the cultural shackles of gender norms. I still want ppl to acknowledge the ranks of women who played the men’s game of masculinity to get enough women in power to be able to move the needle of power towards femininity.
my understanding of darwin, having studied "on the origin of species," is that he was not racist. he wrote that there's no such thing as race--we are all one human race--and the only difference was observables that make no real difference. many people who adopted his work weaponized it, despite his vociferous protests, creating "social darwinism" and feeding into classism and racism.
He talked about "animals and savages" referring to Black and indigenous people. Thats pretty racist. He also talked about how the races aren't separated by clean cut lines, and that they "graduate" into each other, but he did not insinuate that they are or were all equal in intelligence.
During the women suffrage era were there any white people who would not be counted as racist by today's standards? My hunch is that just about any symbol from the distant past would require some redefinition to be used in the current context. In the end making use of a historic symbol requires cultural appropriation. The late 19th and early 20th Century version of American culture was a very different culture from the one we are part of now. Consider the USA's use of iconography from ancient Egypt. It's highly unlikely that the Christianized founding fathers (mostly Deists) understood the pyramid and the eye of Osiris on the seal of the US the same way that an Ancient Egyptian would have. The founding fathers mostly wanted to communicate the ideas of permanence and wisdom. Ancient Egyptians would have understood the symbols in religious ways in which the founding fathers did not. Modern feminists are basically doing the same thing when they wear white with a sash. It's good to be aware of the negative of an historic symbol. But that doesn't mean we can't redefine it for our own purposes. The very nature of the modern feminist movement will inevitably redefine to one extent or another any symbol it takes from the woman's suffrage movement.
Only some of the republicans would not be considered racist. The whole Democrat party stood on white Supremacy until recently... Now they're anti white lol
@@mick411 I wasn't out to make a comment about modern politics. But excluding attitudes of the right wing which want to return to a historic norm on race, the point remains that even progressives on race in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries would have been racists by today's standards. Non of them would have approved of non-whites having equal access to holding political office and high positions in corporations and the like. While there are some anti-white racists on the left, that's a minority. That you say all modern democrats are racists says more about your political perspective than it does about modern democrats.
Margret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, supported eugenics, was racist and a suffragette. So not so different from Canada. I commented above, but the UK did have instances of violence with police, like on Black Friday. Eugenics was rampant during this time, fed from Darwinism, and important to note it’s support did not just extend from the suffragettes.
While I expect that the suffrage movement in the UK was full of a lot of very racist women, it was less of a political thing here simply because in the early 1900's there wasnt a large enough non-white population in the UK for people to care so much. This isn't to say there were no POC in the UK, there absolutely were, but in some constituency's in the usa the majority of the population was black, so it was a much more important issue. What you see a lot of instead is a lot of complaints about how poor men can vote but good wealthy woman cannot. There was also a lot of terrorism from the UK suffrage movement. Not sure if that happened in the USA? My personal favourite bomb was a letter bomb with a label saying "votes for women, death in ten minutes".
I'm not an expert but from my shallow knowledge the tensions in UK suffragette history would be around British Imperialism and Class. It's almost funny reading the directions that the Pankhurst women went in; Conservatives, Communist to anti-Facist and anti-Colonialist, and Communist to Fascist.
I want to see a new intersectional suffragette movement that takes the dress and redefines it through actions. I remember loving Pocahontas' Disney outfit as a preteen, but I grew up in the Susquehanna river valley, it didn't take long even way back before the quick ire of the internet, 1980/1990s, for friends (some of who where descendant of the groups misrepresented in the movie, to be fair I am as well but on the other side, look up the West brothers and their Governorship of Virginia. ) to correct my costuming desires. It's still stunning and pretty, but I just could not stand to wear it or let any of my children parade around in it.
I also am reminded of the peacock dress, I think you really hit the nail on the head right at the beginning of the video with Ora Lin's comment that clothing is the way people uphold and participate in social constructs
Biology instructor and student of historical science here with one small quibble here when you talk about Darwinism. Now, there is "Darwinism" a.k.a. the Theory of Natural Selection, the first plausible and testable explanation for the evolution of the vast diversity and yet deep connectedness of all life on the planet and supported by modern genetic science. And there is "Social Darwinism," the misappropriation of natural selection to promote and support white colonialism. Darwin himself opposed the use of the term "Darwinism" in this way, insisting that colonialism, war, and violence are NOT what "survival of the fittest" means at all (where "fit" in an evolutionary sense means pretty much "lucky enough to survive and have offspring"). Not that Darwin himself wasn't a white English Protestant male of his time. It took him an embarrassingly long time to realize that sexual selection was behind sexual dimorphism, something he'd had a terrible time explaining, just because it went entirely against everything he "knew" to think that anything in the grand course of evolution could possibly be directed by ::gasp!:: female choice. But he is not the author of "social Darwinism" and never wanted anything to do with it.
Hey, so knew to the channel, watched and liked a couple vids. As a black woman the 1st part of this video I didn't watch as I already knew about it and the history of how they treated my people. This 1 i decided to watch because I wanted to see your take on it. For the most part great, what was stated were facts without caring for white feelings and usually I find a sensibility there when other whites talk about slavery and how they viewed black people. I hope you have noticed I am saying black people and not, poc. As you and Ora Lin made that mistake many times and actually is a micro aggression and word created by the far left to group anyone not white together and undermine specifically black peoples struggles. Where other non white races discriminated against during this time and other times? Yes. However the race of people to suffer the the most direct and heinous crimes were black people, especially during this topic. And no it is not a competition, just stating a fact but i know someone will say that which is just another non argument to silence black voices. So saying poc suggests anyone who is not white had this treatment. If you are not white and are not black then call yourself poc as you wish, however do not refer to black people as poc especially when talking on historical topics. We do not prescribe to it and did not choose it.
There were also false statements made about body hair, so more micro aggression which you could argue Ora Lin did not know, but there should have been research done since you decided to talk about it and now spread mis information about my people that actually has deep routed history in racism and how black people today view their body hair and society views us. We do not in fact tend to have more body hair, it is just our hair usually is darker and in some cases thicker, making the hair more visible. Seeming like there is more but in reality if you wet the legs of a white woman and black woman you would more clearly see its the same or actually the white woman has more. I have done this, and the body hair movement has shown a lot of white women showing off way more body hair i and my family and friends could ever grow. But maybe it looks more because the hair is more densely packed on the skin? Im not just assuming white women have more hair, i just noticed black womens body hair seems to be more spars. Also your friend said, "poc", so she could have been talking about middle Eastern or Asian women, who also happen to have thicker, darker hair, however it is not clear and could be mistaken for black people as you had already prefaced "black people" and now even if people think this includes anyone non white, black people are also in the mix of the misinformation. I hardly see any black women in the body hair movement and this misinformation is heavily apart of the why. I hope this helps to further prove my point about using harmful acronyms like poc or bipoc. Poc only makes sense for non white and non black people and bipoc also brings its own issues with people who claim black but only because of the 1 grandparent and they grow up going through life as a white person and choose to claim black when it suits them. Again, we did not choose this. Its not much effort to say black people/person and you stand for calling people by pronouns so race shouldnt be difficult. I realise this is long but I think it is important to bring these to light to people who seem worth it. Because you do seem worth it and I want to help white and non black voices who want to speak out about such topics do it accurately and precisely.
I've heard that "Social Darwinism" was not created by Darwin himself, but his theories of biological evolution among animals were wrongfully applied to human social concepts of race and ethnicity. Do you have a source on Darwin himself advocating for "Darwinism" in this context?
Yes yes on the shaved leg example you brought up. Personally as an AFAB Latine I never felt I could participate in the whole "not shaving, fuck the patriarchy!" Bc, even as a young teen, I would get scolded by family members/ have comments made by family members n friends for not shaving. Partly bc of the fetishization of Latina/femme Latines by the media where we're expected to look like Sofia Vergara, but also bc, there was this sense/vibe that we looked 'uglier' / 'less attractive' than white women who don't shave. I could never ONLY get the "oh, are u not shaving as a political statement?" Comment, it was ALWAYS accompanied with "but why do you wanna look like a hairy mexican?"
I'm a white girl, so I'm not recieving the racial stuff, but I hear you on family pressure. My mother started waxing my legs when I didn't shave much as a teenager. As an adult, she's made comments about how "she doesn't mind the hair, but other people will judge me for it". Sometimes the folks close to us make bucking the system even harder.
Second vid in a row I wasn't able to watch because of the music that is too loud and it makes it difficult to focus on what is being said. Too bad because this subject is so interesting and I would love to know more about it.
How much of this was applicable to the Suffragette movement outside the US? Perhaps a comment should have been made at the beginning that this is pertaining to the US movement specifically...
Thanks for the discussion and education. I find it really frustrating how limited my (white German female) knowledge of history still is o.O Your focus in this video was American suffragettes only, wasn't it? Not that I think European suffragettes were not racist, I ask just for clarification. Anyway, how would you recognize that one engages with the history in a modern intersectional-critical fashion? Just because someone wears for example the sash doesn't mean they celebrate it, right, if they do it in a critical context? For reference, if you see someone in Germany in a Nazi uniform, it would always be in a critical/artistic context as the symbols are forbidden to wear/show otherwise in Germany. Once I saw a play about the Third Reich and so many actors played Nazi soldiers, everywhere the Swastika ... it was really surreal and really impactful o.O
I think part of the tricky part of determining "how" / in what "context" someone *means* to wear a historical costume (taking the suffragette costume as an example) is that there are no such clear cut laws as there are in Germany regarding Nahtzi uniforms. If you see someone wearing one in Germany, you *automatically know* because of these rules, that it is in a critical context. But there are no rules that say that you can't wear a suffragette sash (or even far more overtly racist costumes, such as when non-Indigenous people wear Indigenous regalia as a F-ING HALLOWEEN COSTUME), so one has to wonder, "soooo.... are you *aware* that the person/movement you're portraying was racist, or was it just a hole in your historic knowledge and a genuine mistake?" The way I would go about doing it, if I wanted to portray a suffragette, would possibly be to replace the "Votes For Women" sash with a "Votes for Everyone" or "Votes for All People" sash. The original slogan is iconic enough that I feel like the clear deviation from it would signify that I'm both aware of the issues behind the costume, and that I think that all women regardless of color, and all people regardless of gender deserve the right to vote.
< -- starts shopping for sheep || I've had a lot of discussions in the past about ethical and sustainable textiles. As you noted, even if you make all your own clothes, it is likely that some component somewhere is "tainted." It's hard not to become discouraged. I really enjoy textiles and textile designs from certain eras and locales. I have worn, for example, a Russian peasant blouse out of sheer delight at the embroidery and design lines.. Do I support tsarist autocracy and serfdom? HELL NO! Arguments could also be made about cultural appropriation. Anyway, all this rambling to say that I have struggle with these questions for a long time and still don't have any answers.
It is important to note that although Darwin writes that "man has ultimately become superior to women" because of sexual selection in Descent of Man, he never expressed the superiority of one race over another, quite the contrary. He was an avid abolitionist, and postulated that all races were more or less equally intelligent, and that all humans were part of the same species (which was disputed at the time). What you are a describing is scientific racism, wich came about after Darwin. For some reason, it has become associated directly (and incorrectly) with Darwin in some circles.
While Darwin acknowledge that the races do not have clear defining separation lines he definitely insinuated that they were not equal an intelligence and repeatedly referred to "animals and savages"as being below white people. "savages" meaning Black and indigenous people.. Of course he was not the only one to push the idea of a racial hierarchy he did imply one existed.
We should probably start with those pesky white dresses. They and their materials were acquired by the Queen while visiting Africa and finding them superior in the heat. She brought them home and had more made starting the fashion, and following the tradition stealing from the poor and sharing with the rich (read also royal as they weren’t all always wealthy). While I agree with you, Black men did the same thing in failing to support women in the movement. This “may” have played into the movement. Women and black men started out working together to get the people and funds and messages out. Men basically cut a deal to give black men the vote and leave ALL women and natives behind. Animosity is a thing. Hell hath no fury as they say. Also, we had a BIPOC MALE president before we see a female president of any color. None of this is meant as argumentative. Just the opposite, actually. This nation, America, the United States, has been built (on the backs of those who have the least rights to this day) and is controlled by old, rich, white, men. It’s never known anything else. And all people who press against its systems are punished as heavily as possible (Roe). Watch Dave Chappelle’s Netflix specials. He warned us years ago that the #metoo movement would lose us Roe. As a black man who spoke truth to power costing him $50,000,000, he has first hand knowledge of punishment. Abortion was completely legal BEFORE women started saying crazy things like, “but we’d like a vote, a say in things that matter!” That’s when abortion became illegal. We are controlled by the one body part making us “other”, not men. All forms of prejudice are used for one thing, CONTROL! Ironically, that’s the very freedom fought for to create this nation. Actually, the very fact we have the freedom to even discuss these subjects is more than most countries in this world. THAT is privilege.
ANY time you do ANYthing political, you MUST compromise your ideals. Consider, you enter politics to make the country better. You have a bill that will feed poor children in schools. You can prove that the cost of supplying a free meal is vastly overrun by the future benefits of well-fed kids getting good grades = better jobs = paying more taxes = less poverty =less welfare. BUT, you must get the bill in committee and the guy in charge of committee is a racist from Alabama who doesn't want to feed poor black kids. He had reasons for this, stupid reasons, but they make sense to him. So this guy tells you that he will support your bill ONLY if you support his bill to mandate christian prayer in schools and outlaw gay meeting on school grounds. If you refuse, he will kill your bill and poor kids will never have a free lunch while he is in office. ever. What do you do? If you refuse, not only will you NEVER be able to feed poor kids in school but every bill you present to make the country better will die before it is even voted on. All your good intentions will end. BUT, if you agree, hoping to overturn his bills later, you feed the poor kids but work to end freedom of religion and freedom of sexual expression. THESE compromises are what politics are all about. The Suffrege movement existed ONLY because men allowed it. It passed ONLY because men passed it. To get the Amendment passed, they HAD to compromise. Did you expect her to stand on her principles and kill votes-for-women or should she make a temporary compromise for the bigger picture?
I just wanted to hop on and say that not all of us *knew* about how problematic the suffragette imagery is. I had NO idea until V's last video about it. I thought it was a symbol that we'd all been fighting for so long now, and we're still not done. Now I'm not sure how I feel about those images, and modern cosplayers, but I can't feel the same way as I did. And that's okay! As long as I'm always trying to improve my knowledge, and my own self.
Thanks V! And Ora!
Well said. My grandmother was part of the original groups in the earlier 20th century & the was no one more embarrassingly classiest, to say nothing of haughty, as that woman who thought herself liberated: a person of the People.
We ALL owe V a vote of thanks on this score.
This is EXACTLY why we wanted to make this video, and I'm so happy it seems to be having the impact we wanted!
i was the same way! as hard as it is to learn that you were wrong and doing something harmful, it's what makes learning and growing such an important part of life
I had no idea either. Even though I'm not from the USA, so my knowledge was very surface-level, considering what is happening with race discussions being forbidden in schools in some places, I'm not surprised that not many people get that information unless specifically looking for it, so very important set of videos 😘
History is complex. Were they smart to use the fragile woman trope to their advantage? Yes. Was it problematic as all get out? Also yes. If we could stop treating the people of the past as either heroes or villains we might be able to make a dent in some of our current problems. So, thanks for this.
I totally agree!
Yeah, one of my fave costubers (Jimmy the Welsh Viking) is always ranting humorously about NUANCE, which I love 😆 I feel like that's the first thing that gets lost when we look back at historical people & events? (Along with context!) And so we are left with these very b+w, oversimplified images which of course don't gel with real life. That process then leads to this weird unhealthy nostalgia for a supposedly "simpler" time... It wasn't, we've just lost a lot of the details in looking back!
"I'm not racist but... I will appease racists for their support, sorry fam."
Preeeecisely.
As a kid in a multicultural household, I loved Disney’s Pocahontas. She was a native princess, so I could be too! Then I got old enough to want to dig into her story some more and learned the horrifying true story that Disney white washed into a love story for kids. Now, even though I love the music, any time I hear it or see costumes for it I have a visceral negative reaction. I would love for Disney to use the Pocahontas platform, one of the original MMIW, to support MMIW today.
Ponderful actually recently posted an excellent video about the early suffrage movement in the UK and how it failed activists like Sylvia Pankhurst, who advocated for and worked tirelessly to oppose war, fascism, and to provide mutual aid to working class women, single mothers, Jewish women, women of colour, sex workers, queer women, and other women who didn't fit the respectable ideals of her contemporaries - including her own mother, Emmeline Pankhurst. I highly recommend giving it a watch.
Sylvia Pankhurst basically seems like proof that the other white Suffragettes had no excuse!
Not exactly historical costuming but sort of related: I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about folk dress as well. How some styles of cultural dress or folk symbols have been co-opted by white nationalist/supremacist groups. While some folk costumes have been derived whole cloth for nationalist movements to create a sense of homogeneity, a lot of them have not.
It is also a problem in some pagan groups, where cultural dress or iconography has been taken for nefarious means for their historical link to what the folkists see as ‘European’ culture. So while those symbols are now associated with nazism, they simultaneously are still important religious symbols to some (non-white supremacist) folks.
I apologize if this isn’t clear but I think the connection in my head is about how some historical dress was created for the purpose or in tandem with racist causes, others were not but _were_ later appropriated by racists and have become linked with them in popular consciousness.
Think like Norse runes and other Norse Heathen iconography like mjolnir, the valknut, etc. that can be important religious symbols for some practitioners but are inextricably linked with neo-nazis to other people. Idk, I am not suggesting for you to discuss it but I do think your thoughts on the subject would be interesting, since you are typically very thorough, nuanced, and empathetic. Your conversation just kind of got me thinking about this as well.
If you've not seen it you should watch the Welsh Viking's recent video on runes. It addresses some of those aspects.
Tracht has a similar history as well, including banning the wearing by Jews under the Nazis.
IIRC JeWitches has some really great content about this!
I am an American mutt and of the seven cultures (plus American) I come from the only one that I had exposure to was Polish through my half-Polish Grandmom.
I decided I had to have a traditional Polish folk costume (a Nationalist creation in response to the dissolution of the Polish state) as seen at the Polish American festivals we attended in my youth.
But then I acknowledged that I am not actually of the Polish culture and decided to use the silhouette and then customize the cloth patterns and embroidery to represent the symbols of where my ancestors came from. This excites me because I am using the inspiration of these cultures to create something that is as unique as me while avoiding using what I am not connected to (like religious symbols). Wish me luck 🍀
VALIDATE our history and it's complexities.
APPRECIATE our unsung heroes.
EDUCATE our community so we can continue to grow diversely
I remember in high school our biology teacher started the course about evolution with a capsion from a 1920's biology book. It said that basically black people (using the n-word) were lower lifeforms or something similar... Like people couldn't really get away from that idea as it was something that school taught and everyone "knew" as fact.
My grandmother that is over 80 always marvels about how non white people are just as humane and good and all the things we white people are. We are finnish so she was well into adulthood when she actually saw a non white person for the first time and she learned that what her school taught her was bull.
I hope that teacher saw some serious consequences!
I had no idea that clothing from the turn of the century and before could represent such awful ideas. I am 62 and while I never dressed in any clothing from these time periods, I know I probably would have innocently done so because I like the way they look. I would have never thought "I need to research these clothes to make sure sure I'm NOT sending the wrong message"! I cannot thank you BOTH enough for making me (and I'm sure many others) aware of this. I am definitely sharing this post and will definitely be sharing this information verbally as well. Keep up the great history lessons ladies! ❤️❤️❤️❤️
You're so welcome! It makes me really happy to see people coming into the historical costuming world with this in mind. You can enjoy the dresses and understand the history at the same time!
The clothing from now represents awful ideas and practices too. And I think that because we absolutely cannot get away from it, we should engage with it. Whether that's historical clothing (plus all the impacts that history has on us now), or modern clothing and trying to fix society however we can.
I'm getting on in years, too, and I've learned so much from watching TH-cam. Having people patiently educate me about things like White Male Privilege, Trans Rights and the Racism Inherent in Inanimate Objects has been a real help. 👍
Very very helpful conversation. I really appreciate hearing a wide variety of voices on this topic. Coincidentally I was talking with a coworker over lunch today about how incremental change at an "acceptable" pace (according to those in the majority) will never be fast enough and will never go far enough to address the actual needs of those who are already marginalized by the system. It's hard to feel like we're getting traction in the conversations, especially when talking with people who still feel pressured to "act right" (as you both so astutely acknowledged toward the end of the video)... but I have to trust that perhaps each small gentle conversation will lead to transformation.
sometimes the small gentle conversations (at least the ones that go will) are what we need to stay optimistic!
Learning all this is scary how so much we are not taught. We do not spend enough time just talking about how history is not perfect.
We people who are not rich are treading water just getting through the day while others with power are trying to blame us for not doing enough, carbon footprint or doing charity.
And unfortunately, that’s what they are banking on. I’m not an alarmist, but the entire system is rigged so those who are working regular jobs (or two or more) just to pay the bills are at a distinct disadvantage.
Cheaper food is often the most unhealthy and health insurance is expensive. You have to have time to do further research because media typically provides biased perspectives but because of the situation, fewer and fewer ppl have that kind of time. We are not provided a full education with respect to history, neither modern nor antiquated. Large corporations, politicians and media outlets hope that the population stays ignorant of what is genuinely happening behind the shiny veneer.
Now luckily, ppl are becoming wise to the advertising tricks and bs tactics used by these entities so hopefully in the future, we as a population will hold them accountable.
(Note: I’m speaking of the USA specifically)
Sitting with your own imperfections and biased thinking is hard and sucks. Doing performative behaviors and getting a pat on the head is easier. The first on is more important.
Hitting the nail on the head 🙌🙌🙌
This is a deeply important and often overlooked issue when it comes to the history of suffrage. In some of my own research into this history in Canada is that the famous five, the most well known and documented suffragettes here, were varying shades of racist and deeply ableist, some wrote pamphlets on their views on eugenics. I've interpreted a suffragette for museum programs and this history features heavily into my interpretation and people are shocked almost 100% of the time it comes up. Like you both mentioned, clothing has such an impact in the messages that it sends. Historical clothing can be such a good tool for educating in a museum setting imo and it is so so important to be responsible when doing costuming. I agree wholeheartedly, this was a great addition to the series!
Ever since I read The Dawn of Everything, I can't think about the Seneca Falls convention without thinking about how the Iroquois Confederacy, of which the Seneca people are a part, enshrines women's place in government in its founding document. If you asked a Seneca woman in the year 1700 whether women should be involved in politics, she'd look at you like you were asking whether the sky should be blue.
The conversation happening at the Seneca Falls Convention was CENTURIES behind. Our American political imaginations are so limited!
And it’s rarely, if ever, discussed as yet more erasure of our collective history.
Thanks for producing this content. Did the BIPOC suffragettes have any specific markers or colors? Would it be feasable to create modern symbols as a flag to indicate there's more to it. I guess like an additional rosette, as a conversation starter. I'm thinking about the updated pride flag, to be very clear that your values are intersectional.
I don't know, but I would love it if there was something like that!
Hey, a really good video including discussion of modern image portrayal without critical thinking is Cheney McKnight’s video with Abby Cox. Abby talks about why she chose a plantation wedding and it’s really great!
Also, the peacock dress is the garment that context changed my whole perception of not only the gown but the entire haute couture industry.
I highly recommend this video too!
Yes! I love Cheney’s videos. I have learned so much!
Cheyney's content is so good!
Cheney’s video on this was fantastic.
Thank you for modelling a conversation because we do need to be listening and talking with each other. Thank you for your time and attention. 💙
we had tons of fun doing this! Glad you enjoyed 💚
Thank you for another interesting history lesson. I just have a point about the background music in this video. It could be my sensory issues, but the music seemed louder than in your other videos, and I sometimes had difficulty filtering out the dialogue. You’ve encouraged me to look more into the British suffragette movement to see where they may have gone off the rails.
Yes, it's a shame that when such important information was being communicated, that the increasing level of the music was drowning you out. I really thought more than once it was an indication the video coming to an end. We really don't need music in this situation and certainly not sound effects either.
Thanks for this discussion; you two succinctly expressed a few things I've been learning recently. I've been delving into the folk dress of all my ancestors and trying to reconcile the fact that some of them (Austrians) press-ganged the others (Romani in Romania), and then another set (Germans) came in and colonized them later. And then of course they all came to Canada.... It's rough.
With this era, it is important not to confound racism with Class. In the US, until the 1920 enumeration, European ethnicities were labeled RACES. This certainly was the case in the 1900 census. Thus, the Irish, Italians, & the Poles were considered of a different race than the Educated English. Certainly this confounded money with the ethnic origins of immigrants. Still does.
My point is: when entitled white women of the suffrage movement disdained poor Irish, Italian, Jewish, or Polish women, were they racists or classists or both in their own terms/thinking
There's a good deal of overlap. It's important to note as carefully and as clearly as possible what's happening when we know. When there is question, we should look at that as well.
Race and class tend not to stand on their own, which is why intersectionality is a fascinating framework for analysis.
It's naive at best to try to separate class and race; a larger percentage of Black (and Brown) people are poor now (aka, "lower class") because of the racism the USA was founded on. The USA government gave land and stakes to white people that they took from Indigenous people, and when they were forced to give land to Black people, they immediately devised ways to steal it back, even when dressed as 'legal purchases".
@@azteclady sorta but I get your rhetorical gist.
History we don’t study and know about, but when we don’t, we repeat it. Unfortunately it’s happening again, and again. Why do people have to suffer before everyone realizes that we are all human. We all have a part to play. Speak out and learn, then teach. Do your best to help everyone move forward.
Thank you for this. You’re both doing at great job at helping everyone do so.
aww, thank *you!*
I'm loving learning so much on your videos. There's so much of the past that is deliberately ignored or buried (especially by those that it makes look bad!). Having/hearing these conversations and getting facts out is incredible. Keep up the good work.
thank you so much! It always surprises me when my videos are how people learn about things (given I'm not an academically trained educator) but this is why I keep making them.
@@SnappyDragon ..and it is why we keep watching and appreciate your videos so much!
Thank you very much for this video. My greater hope is that people will be able to pause and give themselves a moment before reacting out of defensiveness. It's okay to have complicated feelings about complex matters. We need to keep learning and refining what we know, and keep questioning.
Exactly!
Well said! We have to become more comfortable with feeling uncomfortable, it’s an enlightening experience that allows one to grow more empathetic (to others as well as themselves).
this is the most nuanced and well-thought out conversation about addressing our history I've ever seen. Most people either mythologize it and treat historical figures like gods or our past is ontologically evil and the people in the past were like demons. Ironically, the past is the same as the present, and probably the future: it's messy, complicated, multi-faceted and can never be truly understood in one lifetime. I think that's why people care so much about history, there is no one "true" way to interpret history, as long as you have the most accurate view of it and use evidence to justify whatever belief you hold. Anti-racism must be a constructive thing, in contrast to the modern definitions of whiteness (as an "absence of race" that must be mantained or it will be lost, there is no anti-racist definition of whiteness), if we are to tear down the old oppressive structures, we must have something new that ensures equity for everyone in its place or, like what Ora said: you'll just have more nasty loopholes. one of the best videos you ever put out V!
i have to tell you that Ora is sitting next to me squeeing over your comment several hours after having read it :D
@@SnappyDragon omg stooooppppp it you’re gonna inflate my ego too much
Well stated maam
I think there is an anti-racist definition of whiteness:
"White" people are a coalition of tribes who agreed to give up their tribal distinctiveness in return for lasting political, economic, and social power. People who currently identify as "white" would have historically been counted among a number of European tribes (including, but not limited to, Saxons, Anglos, Celts, Gauls Castilians, Aragons, Roman, Irish, etc.); but at some point, abandoned their tribal distinctiveness in return for inclusion in the power structure created by "whites".
That said, it's a new thing. While there's been some work in academia going back a little longer (mostly looking at how people became white), I've only heard people talking about whiteness in this way going back maybe 10 years, probably less.
@@cristoferwolz-romberger3835 I’m not really sure if that’s the best definition. Think of this, Obama has a white mother and a black father. He’s called America’s first black President, he can’t call himself a white president. But by all accounts, he’s equally “white” and “black”, literally 50/50, but white people would never accept that. It’s the same with, say, European jews or the Irish, sometimes they’re white and sometimes they’re not, their relationship to whiteness is fluid, based on how threatened white supremacy is. That’s why there’s no such possibility for “black genocide” the same way that white supremacists imagine “white genocide”, because whiteness can be lost from a family lineage, but blackness can never be lost or it’s very difficult to distance yourself from blackness before you’re considered “white” again by the hegemony. Hence why the modern definition of whiteness as “an absence of race” because there is always this present dichotomy of “pure whiteness” and “corrupting ethnicity” in white supremacist thought.
history in context is so important!!❤ thank you! And i am so glad that we are having these conversations in the historical sewing area!
i particularly remember when i first heard about this. Definitely the reason why i stopped using any suffragette accessory in historical costuming and started to look into the womenmovement from my country. Which unfortunately also didn't particularly encourage POC topics at the time or were trying to abolish the situation. entirely but at least there are no recorded racist reasons or similar themes for getting the vote by putting the other minorities even further down as the english speaking suffragette movement had.
I just subscribed to Ora Lin! Thank you to both of you for helping me learn more about history.
Chemise gowns. Also the peacock dress that has been going around. Thank you both for this. What a great topic and so amazing!!!
Such an important discussion! Thank you both for bringing up such good points!
Thanks both again for a brilliant video. Particularly to sit with your discomfort and it will lead you in the right direction, rather than avoiding it.
I love how you've said that! I may quote you in the future.
@@SnappyDragon Of course. I feel like I was just paraphrasing what you both said :)
thank you SO MUCH for this video!! it answered all of the questions i had following the previous video on the suffragettes. i especially appreciated the section at 12:23, which could not have better expressed my position on the matter; the feminist façade of the suffragette movement aligns with my morals, but when you look at the truth of the movement, it's uncomfortable as the morals i was unknowingly representing don't align with my own, which made me feel terrible about myself. again, thank you both so much for such invaluable information and perspectives!
It irritates me when people see a TERF SWERF or racist feminist and just say "they aren't a real feminist" and go on their merry way without a care in the world cause it doesn't affect them. Our Tupuna (ancestors/grandparents) have over the last century had to start their own movements because whyte suffragettes/feminists treated them awfully, ignored them or left them behind.
This was amazing, and the conversation about listening to discomfort can be applied to so many situations. Also, I wish people would engage with these uncomfortable ideas rather than go for the spectacle of appearing to be moral. I'll be saving this video to share everywhere, for all those situations that it applies to outside of historical costuming.
"Died by accident" If you're talking about the woman in the UK that was run over by the horse trying to stop a race (Emily Davidson).
She died by suicide.
There was a program about forensically examining the footage and it was shown she deliberately walked/leapt in fromt of the horse of the Prince of Wales. The clip and examination of the video is here on TH-cam as "Clare Balding's secrets of a suffragette - Epsom Darby Festival - Channel 4 Racing".
Interesting book about the UK suffragettes is "Death in ten minutes" by Fern Riddell. I listened to the audio book, which was read by the author.
This book DID touch on the classism and racism, a little. The main "heroine" was white, but was also an Actress - which back then was considered almost the same thing as a prostitute! So, though she was an important "field agent", she was never embraced by the organization.
Another "Heroine" was an Indian woman from an Indian Royal Family. Apparently she got quite a good amount of Press for them.
What I thought was interesting was how the women "in the field" were risking their lives (a shocking amount of bombs, & back then that wasn't the most stable thing to do!) And, the upper echelons were having tea and "whitewashing" the history and the violence. Lots of the women were arsonists, bomb makers & such, and then were quietly forgotten.
I think one thing that SHOULD have been mentioned in your video was the force feeding that the suffragettes suffered through. I had a hard time listening to it. Quite barbaric & Savage.
A complex topic, for sure. Missed the first video, will have to check it out.
It would be interesting to have videos (probably would take more than one, of reasonable length) about how working men's work clothes (thinking jeans and t-shirts) became essentially the uniform of the whole baby boomer generation, and beyond. My last day of junior high school in 1969 was the first day girls were permitted to wear trousers of any kind to school, and how huge a moment that was. Before that, skirts, stockings (before pantyhose), low-heeled shoes; after, jeans everywhere, every day.
Thanks for sharing! Loving the couple of collaboration videos with Ora Lin. (Hi comment moderators!)
Adding to the Suffregettes were racist, in Britain some of them were also classist. They wanted rights for upper class women. Thet were not bothered about the working classes, like my family. Thankfully universal sufferage was brought into law in the UK. If you can please use your vote to support marginalised people where you live.
Great video from you and Ora! I totally agree, I'd love to see people wear historical dress, while at least acknowledging the history.
exactly! Wearing the dresses and acknowledging the history are not mutually exclusive, the goal is to do both.
Well done! thank you for the insights and the introduction to a new voice in Ora.
They are fantastic! Love their videos.
As requested (sic)
Waving to moderators and thanking you folk for your work to keep comments and conversations respectful
🖐👏
Thank you V,
For saying the things that need to be said
Quick distillation of complexities, but overall good discussion. A minor point of clarification: in the US, they used the term "suffragist," as "suffragette" was used to diminish the cause of women suffrage altogether. In England, they used the term "suffragette."
Such an important video!!! Please keep them coming, you always hit the nail right on the head and I love hearing your views on important issues!
plenty more Social Justice Costuming where this came from 😃
I honestly had no idea that The Suffragettes were racist. Which, is admittedly kind of ridiculous. Had I thought for two seconds about time and place and all the other issues surrounding that particular movement it would not have been a difficult awareness to come to. But without reason to believe or any indication of anything distasteful going on in the movement there was no reason to think about it. So I guess this whole thing has left me with a few thoughts I want to get out of my head: 1. Thank you for making me aware of this being a thing. As I said before I would have never known because there wasnt ever reason for me to ask that question. 2. This highlights yet another glaring omittance in our education standards. The Suffragette movement was always taught as a beautifully noble and fantastically virtuous movement. Never in school was this ever brought up. And finally, 3. Sadly, as grateful as I am to learn this information, because ignorance is the state in which evil gets to thrive. I am also very aware of a profound sadness at the loss of what I believed to be true having become educated on the reality of the movement.
That being said, cognitive dissonance, realizing that we shouldn't always meet our heroes, and the acceptance that we are better off in the long run when we realize that Santa Clause isn't real is all a part of the human condition, and I will strive to never disparage it, despite how much it really does hurt at times.
This was so interesting and very well done. Now I have to go watch the first one since I missed that
Thankyou for this video. The information about the Suffragettes was extremely interesting. Events from time past have to be viewed in context. Many 0f the Suffragettes were probably focused on getting the vote. My family are originally from Scotland where they have had many skirmishes and wars with England. Wearing tartan was banned after the Battle at Cullodon between the Scots and the English. The Scots' language (Gaelich) was also banned and they were required to speak English. We still celebrate being able to wear tartans again with a church service called the"Kirkin' o' the Tartan". Gaelich is being taught in some schools in Scotland. There are differences of opinion to this day between the Scots and the English about various aspects of these topics. Learning more about the history of times past is really fascinating and knowing as much as we can about the past is compelling.
Thank you for this. We need to have truly nuanced discussions about our history and our present.
THANK YOU for filming and sharing this discussion! This is a subject that deserves the attention you are giving it. You're absolutely right, too, that any garment from any time period can have a political agenda, but being informed about the history is what is important about changing the future.
Big, big thanks to the moderators for all their hard work
If you were to redesign the outfits into a non racist version to a more inclusive version. What colours would you use instead? I’m going to try this for my fashion history portfolio so not only talking about the suffragettes but also the true history of it. I hope to redesign the outfits for the movement.
Very important point: mutual aid is something you DO, not something you GIVE. Mutual aid is NOT charity, it's an act with no thought of any benefit whatsoever. It's also relationship building and a building of community. Mutual aid is integral to Anarchist praxis and it's much deeper than "give to this person", it's a whole complex relationship that is something you do on an ongoing basis. You don't do mutual aid like charity. Mutual aid is ongoing and complex. Mutual aid networks are meant to create a place outside of capitalism and especially commodity production and if you don't understand the deeply Anarchist origins of mutual aid, you will fail and simply revert back to charity with radical language.
I taught high school social studies for 16 years and not once in any of the textbooks I taught from did they address that the suffragette movement was racist. I’m only discovering now after I left public education about the realities of what we taught. I never even thought about it. I’m a total nerd, but in the past focused on different areas. Thanks for another excellent video!
In terms of clothing changed by context, there’s Indigenous American regalia. While the costume community uses the word “costume” freely, it’s a huge insult to call our clothes that. It brings to mind Halloween outfits cobbled from lazy stereotypes and cultural theft.
On a personal note, some ethnic groups have clothing history dating back centuries or millennia. My tribe is made of several diaspora coming together elude and fight against our colonizers/enslavers. Our clothing history is comparatively young.
My heritage is not a throw away novelty. Wearing it while believing otherwise is on par with "Get Out."
This was so interesting. I've never really thought about the meaning behind the clothes we wear. When I look at historical dresses, I've always looked at them for the visual aesthetic. It definitely changes how I'll look at historical dress.
Also, this needs to be included in our education. They never bothered to point out that the women's suffrage movement was only meant for white women.
So, basically the suffragettes were hypocrites! Yes, it certainly was okay that they were fighting for their own rights, but what about the black women (women of color), or fighting against the abuse/exploitation of children, (by parents).
15:00 I find it very interesting that you brought up the series The Nevers because I remember that tea party scene and remember thinking that they did such a good job with showing what abelism is really like, and then it turns out the bad guys of the series are the mentally ill girl trope (who is also the first to die trope) and the person in a wheelchair trope and I was disgusted and stoped watching after that because I didn't want to deal with that amount of abelism. How did they get it so right and so wrong in 3? Episodes.
I absolutely love the information given in this video! I do have some feedback about the audio. The 'background' music gets very loud and distracting/overwhelming that I could not finish watching it. Making the video not accessible for me with the sensory processing challenges my autism brings. Which is a shame. I think everyone should be able to watch this, since the information is so important.
For sure. I struggled to get to the end but had much trouble following the conversation due to the distraction.
Thank you V, Ora and your mods! Fantastic.
Just one bit of feedback, though it could be due to my ADHD: the background music varies a lot in volume and at times is quite loud. The changes are tricky to ignore.
But otherwise, amazing!
More importantly: this is stuff we all should know - and we all need to reflect on our own actions and beliefs, not just judge the past. Because we will be the past.
Seems like a great convo, and I'm now following Ora, but unfortunately I had to stop watching the video halfway through as the music was just too much, especially while trying to hear and process the conversation as well. I'm neurodivergent with sensory issues, so it is possible I'm the only one who had the problem, but I thought I'd let you know, especially as I usually don't have any problems with with videos in that regard.
Thank you for all the work you put in!
Edit: I started watching Ora's critical race theory video, but had the same problem with the increasingly dramatic background music 😞
everyone in my generation knows what a nazi is--our older relatives fought them, so everyone i know would bristle if we saw someone dressed that way. but we never learned in school what the suffragette colors meant or that the movement was racist. so it's sad but not surprising that people might pick up the aesthetic without any understanding of the meaning. thank you for reminding us that it's up to us to research the backstory of the historical fashions we might want to wear.
Excellent video! I have such complicated feels for Alice Paul, and I'm so glad that you're bringing up the things she wouldn't have been proud of
I dont know which way around it went, but the ancient greek "democracy" was connected with the colour white and purity, because they were seen as the ancestors of the british, german, french etc. who wanted to see their history and present in this white, enlightened facet since the Renaissance. That way everyone was made to believe that ancient sculpture, architecture and clothing was also mainly white. Consequently, until today people deliberately and/or subsonciously view white as a neutral, clean colour, think of hospitals, white linen sheets, underwear, house facades or the white polo shirts of the mega rich. In colonial tanzania for example the missionaries swapped the colourful and patterned home made clothes of the tanzanians with white, long shirts, so that they were dressed "modestly" and with maybe the most important colour of christian "enlightened" people. When massive traces of coulour was found on ancient sculpture it was scruffed off, because I believe that the ancient dresses reminded them of the colourful clothing of the people they were colonizing and looking down upon. What want to say is that the colour white is not neutral and pure, it is in my opinion used to substitute peoples original cultural preferences and traditions, and to eliminate any sparks of other colours and cheerful patterns that stand for anyone who cannot or does not want to fit into this white normative society. All that is in part done through a false recreation of the ancient greek and roman, "classical" past.
The only connection between (Roman) democracy and the colour white I know of that actually dates from antiquity is found in the word “candidate”, which refers to the extra-white, chalk-scrubbed togas of those who were standing for election.
Thank you very much for this series in particular.
You're welcome Nana!
I appreciate you including information on how to move forward with this information, especially if this is new knowledge for you.
In the Uk the suffragette colours were green white and purple. No gold. Not to say there was no racist or classist elements but we had a different story line from the States.
There is a dress in a UK collection, known as The Peacock Dress. This was created by the House of Worth for Lady Curzon who was the wife of the Viceroy of India at the turn of the 19th century. It is heavily beaded with peacock feathers over most of the surface, but over time the colour of the beads has faded or tarnished.
Cathy Hay, a historical costume TH-camr from the UK, wanted people to see it as it would have looked when it was made and undertook to recreate it. The project was a huge piece of work, and she in fact started to work with an Indian embroidery company to reproduce the heavy beading that covered the dress.
She was unaware of the controversy surrounding it until she was called out on the matter. The original work done in India was performed in horrifying conditions of poverty in which workers were kept in poverty conditions and treated almost as slaves. It was all part of the oppression of people by the British empire, which has a history of incredible brutality and theft from India which is too little taught in Britain.
When she heard about the criticism, Cathy looked into it more, and decided that yes, it was ignorant and arrogant of her to undertake her project without researching the background more. She was clearly shocked not only by what she learned but also by her own ignorance.
She still got criticism, though I think her approach to the matter was courageous. Her approach to the Indian company and their embroiderers was very respectful, but she was treated as if they were an insignificant part of the project in her mind.
In the end she shared a video in which she talked about the painful process she followed when she was challenged and did more research into the political and racist background of the piece she had wanted to recreate. She was criticised for that too, as if the pain of her own process was an indulgence instead of very real.
There's a huge 'movement' for us to destroy works of art and other symbols which 'glorify' shameful history - though I don't think anyone has suggested this for the Peacock dress. On the contrary I think these symbols should be retained, but the information provided on the displays should include all aspects of their history.
There is a statue in Edinburgh erected to Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, who was an incredibly powerful politician. He also regarded slavery as important for Britain, and opposed the abolition of the slave trade, delaying it for 15 years. There are other significant problems with the actions of Henry Dundas, which are completely glossed over. The current Viscount is claiming that Henry Dundas was an abolitionist. Sir Geoff Palmer has been campaigning to including the criticism - which is a matter of historical facts - on the displays around the statue, so that the proper history is fully recognised recognised..
On the hill above the village where I was. raised is a monument to Lord Stafford the first Earl of Sutherland, who was responsible for the brutal removal from the land of thousands of people who had lived there and crofted for hundreds of years, paying rent plus service in the from of labour and military enlistment to the regiments for the area. The landscape still bears the scars. It is beautiful and wild and empty, and is called the last wilderness in Europe, but for me, love it as I do, it is full of pain too.
This monument is controversial in the county - it's a symbol of brutality, erected by a tax on the people, but masquerades as a voluntary tribute to am "improver". The history wasn't told in schools until the 60s, though I know just how much it was known through actual local memory.
There was at one time a movement to have it removed or destroyed, opposed by many who were fond of it. I don't know why others had that fondness, but though I don't share it, I knew that when I saw it from all those miles away, I was nearly home.
I was always opposed its removal, but not because it was a symbol of home - instead I wanted the plaques and notices to include not only the official line sanctioned by the current Countess and family, but add the actual facts and details.
People were killed, thousands of families were removed, and either placed on infertile land, deliberately too small to support a family (so they either performed unpaid labour for the landlord), transported to the coasts to subsist by fishing (in which they had no skill base or knowledge and again, many starved); or transported to Canada and the US.
There is a reason why so many white people in the northern Americas claim Scottish roots, and that fact in itself speaks volumes about the numbers who were transported. The story is that the Earl paid for their journey and they should be grateful: In fact many either died on the crossing, or were lost at sea - and those who made it had to pay back the cost of their crossing, usually as indentured servants.
I say - keep the works of art - but tell the whole story. The fact that those statues, dresses, or sashes were made and praised is as much a part of the facts as all the real political significance is. It is as much a part of the oppression and of the mechanisms that perpetuate oppression. Its presence is important and should be used to educate us. It should stay to remind us to scrutinise those we are told to admire, to find their weaknesses and vices - BEFORE they are sanctified.
Thank you for this video. Now I have to research how this applies to my home country (im not from the US so the movement was different here - but how different and what they exactly fought for I dont know yet)
I liked your example with the uniform. Wearing those specific uniforms (and symbols) isn't allowed here in Germany for a very good reason - but even if it wasnt I would never ever think it would be a good idea to wear one, especially not while visiting places like former labor camps (or worse) or museums about that topic.
Sorry that I couldnt watch it when you released it. Usually I watch youtube videos in bed to sleep better but I felt that topic needed a bit more focus then sleepy me trying to doze off ^^;
regarding body hair and fashion marketing... in england and northern europe based cultures, the emphasis was to seperate yourself from "animals" the more distant you were from "animals" the more evolved. (this is why the comparison of PoC to apes was used so very much) white skin, and a lack of body hair, was used to "prove" you were more evolved- as were exaggerated sexual dimorphism (men had facial hair- women did not, for example)
when they first tried to market leg and armpit shaving in south america it was slow go-ing because the indigenous people (and mixed race therefore ) had less body hair than the 'pure' spanish women. ergo, the body hair was a symbol of their racial purity and superiority (ie, proof that they were SPANISH, and not indigenous) turning the usual marketing upside down.
As I understand, in the United Kingdom , the color scheme was green white and violet, rather than using gold . From I have heard the colors were chosen to allude to the anagram of GWV , for give women the vote. I hadn't heard until now about why their American counterparts had using gold instead of green , and it being motivated by white supremacy. I shall research the matter further though.
Maybe the way to engage with the racism of the Suffragette outfit is the change the sash. Change the gold strip (and the purple strip if it also have problematic origins, I couldn't find anything about it with a quick google). I'm taking inspiration from the Progress Pride flag, which added a brown strip and a black one as a show of solidarity after George Flyod. Maybe change the slogan to be more appropriate for whatever occasion you plan to wear it to. The outfit is distinctive enough that people will recognize it for what it is.
I think about this kind of stuff so much as a white SCAdian with a persona from a non-white culture. I’d love to see you explore that specifically in a video sometime, but I’m just so curious about questions like:
- At what point is historical recreation cultural appreciation, and at what point is it cultural appropriation?
- What is the responsible way to celebrate and engage with a historical culture as someone whose ancestors not only weren’t part of that culture but in fact may have been responsible for colonising or even exterminating many people of that culture?
- And, unrelated to historical recreation but related to these kinds of questions: is it cultural appropriation to deliberately change one’s accent to match that of one’s ancestral country as a way of acknowledging and connecting with one’s family history?
So many questions
Rachel, did you know that Ora Lin already has a video on Cultural Appropriation regarding clothing, where they discuss many of these topics? I recommend you go check it out, it's a good one!
Great video. My only issue is the myth that POC have more body. Every study I’ve seen suggest Caucasian people have the highest hair body density.
Which is kinda irrelevant but as a black person who grew up around white people who had to be taught that I didn’t have a tail, blue blood, all over body hair or skin like leather.
Ignorance is different from racism and most people are open to learning I’ve found.
Hi V, I love your content and the ideas dicussed in this video. However, the music in the background is too loud and I find it really distracting when trying to listen and process both Ora and your thoughtful words. I hope this piece of critism can help in future videos especially those which have more of a video essay feel or are a insightful conversation like this one.
I'd write an entire essay on my feelings on this, but I will sum it up and say "Thank you V and Ora for putting in words the feelings of my heart". Sufferagism should be for all oppressed peoples, not just privileged white women. We are all human and we must all be equal. 🖖🏼
Thank you….for all of this. It’s been documented for hundreds of years how much danger anyone who isn’t POC intentionally put themselves in if they ever aligned themselves with us. It may not end in lunching on the scale it once was but financial lynching? YES!
You put yourselves in harms way still. I see y’all ❤
As a woman who grew up in the American Mid-Atlantic states during the 80s, I have struggled my whole life for an ungendered society. Growing up in an all-female household there was no room for gender roles and all the ‘good’ careers (well paying) were held by men. In the age of shoulder pads and the trope of sleeping your way to the top, I railed against femininity and was a proud tomboy nerd.
So when trans-women discussions reached my suburban eyes I felt gut punched that these ppl were doubling down on the very hyper-feminine gendering I had lived my life trying to break.
It took creators like Contrapoints and a new generation of women reclaiming femininity as strength to calm my fears of back-sliding into the cultural shackles of gender norms. I still want ppl to acknowledge the ranks of women who played the men’s game of masculinity to get enough women in power to be able to move the needle of power towards femininity.
my understanding of darwin, having studied "on the origin of species," is that he was not racist. he wrote that there's no such thing as race--we are all one human race--and the only difference was observables that make no real difference. many people who adopted his work weaponized it, despite his vociferous protests, creating "social darwinism" and feeding into classism and racism.
He talked about "animals and savages" referring to Black and indigenous people. Thats pretty racist. He also talked about how the races aren't separated by clean cut lines, and that they "graduate" into each other, but he did not insinuate that they are or were all equal in intelligence.
During the women suffrage era were there any white people who would not be counted as racist by today's standards? My hunch is that just about any symbol from the distant past would require some redefinition to be used in the current context. In the end making use of a historic symbol requires cultural appropriation. The late 19th and early 20th Century version of American culture was a very different culture from the one we are part of now. Consider the USA's use of iconography from ancient Egypt. It's highly unlikely that the Christianized founding fathers (mostly Deists) understood the pyramid and the eye of Osiris on the seal of the US the same way that an Ancient Egyptian would have. The founding fathers mostly wanted to communicate the ideas of permanence and wisdom. Ancient Egyptians would have understood the symbols in religious ways in which the founding fathers did not. Modern feminists are basically doing the same thing when they wear white with a sash. It's good to be aware of the negative of an historic symbol. But that doesn't mean we can't redefine it for our own purposes. The very nature of the modern feminist movement will inevitably redefine to one extent or another any symbol it takes from the woman's suffrage movement.
Only some of the republicans would not be considered racist. The whole Democrat party stood on white Supremacy until recently... Now they're anti white lol
@@mick411 I wasn't out to make a comment about modern politics. But excluding attitudes of the right wing which want to return to a historic norm on race, the point remains that even progressives on race in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries would have been racists by today's standards. Non of them would have approved of non-whites having equal access to holding political office and high positions in corporations and the like. While there are some anti-white racists on the left, that's a minority. That you say all modern democrats are racists says more about your political perspective than it does about modern democrats.
Was the suffragette movement different in the UK then the US?
Margret Sanger, founder of planned parenthood, supported eugenics, was racist and a suffragette. So not so different from Canada. I commented above, but the UK did have instances of violence with police, like on Black Friday. Eugenics was rampant during this time, fed from Darwinism, and important to note it’s support did not just extend from the suffragettes.
While I expect that the suffrage movement in the UK was full of a lot of very racist women, it was less of a political thing here simply because in the early 1900's there wasnt a large enough non-white population in the UK for people to care so much. This isn't to say there were no POC in the UK, there absolutely were, but in some constituency's in the usa the majority of the population was black, so it was a much more important issue.
What you see a lot of instead is a lot of complaints about how poor men can vote but good wealthy woman cannot.
There was also a lot of terrorism from the UK suffrage movement. Not sure if that happened in the USA? My personal favourite bomb was a letter bomb with a label saying "votes for women, death in ten minutes".
I'm not an expert but from my shallow knowledge the tensions in UK suffragette history would be around British Imperialism and Class.
It's almost funny reading the directions that the Pankhurst women went in; Conservatives, Communist to anti-Facist and anti-Colonialist, and Communist to Fascist.
I want to see a new intersectional suffragette movement that takes the dress and redefines it through actions. I remember loving Pocahontas' Disney outfit as a preteen, but I grew up in the Susquehanna river valley, it didn't take long even way back before the quick ire of the internet, 1980/1990s, for friends (some of who where descendant of the groups misrepresented in the movie, to be fair I am as well but on the other side, look up the West brothers and their Governorship of Virginia. ) to correct my costuming desires. It's still stunning and pretty, but I just could not stand to wear it or let any of my children parade around in it.
I also am reminded of the peacock dress, I think you really hit the nail on the head right at the beginning of the video with Ora Lin's comment that clothing is the way people uphold and participate in social constructs
It is! and its not always as obvious as the peacock dress but if you're looking you can almost always find it.
Biology instructor and student of historical science here with one small quibble here when you talk about Darwinism. Now, there is "Darwinism" a.k.a. the Theory of Natural Selection, the first plausible and testable explanation for the evolution of the vast diversity and yet deep connectedness of all life on the planet and supported by modern genetic science. And there is "Social Darwinism," the misappropriation of natural selection to promote and support white colonialism. Darwin himself opposed the use of the term "Darwinism" in this way, insisting that colonialism, war, and violence are NOT what "survival of the fittest" means at all (where "fit" in an evolutionary sense means pretty much "lucky enough to survive and have offspring"). Not that Darwin himself wasn't a white English Protestant male of his time. It took him an embarrassingly long time to realize that sexual selection was behind sexual dimorphism, something he'd had a terrible time explaining, just because it went entirely against everything he "knew" to think that anything in the grand course of evolution could possibly be directed by ::gasp!:: female choice. But he is not the author of "social Darwinism" and never wanted anything to do with it.
Hi V! Love your videos! I love the very factual but spirited approach you use, it makes for good arguments ❤️
This is a really great video. Thanks for having this discussion and sharing resources!
Hey, so knew to the channel, watched and liked a couple vids. As a black woman the 1st part of this video I didn't watch as I already knew about it and the history of how they treated my people. This 1 i decided to watch because I wanted to see your take on it. For the most part great, what was stated were facts without caring for white feelings and usually I find a sensibility there when other whites talk about slavery and how they viewed black people. I hope you have noticed I am saying black people and not, poc. As you and Ora Lin made that mistake many times and actually is a micro aggression and word created by the far left to group anyone not white together and undermine specifically black peoples struggles. Where other non white races discriminated against during this time and other times? Yes. However the race of people to suffer the the most direct and heinous crimes were black people, especially during this topic. And no it is not a competition, just stating a fact but i know someone will say that which is just another non argument to silence black voices. So saying poc suggests anyone who is not white had this treatment. If you are not white and are not black then call yourself poc as you wish, however do not refer to black people as poc especially when talking on historical topics. We do not prescribe to it and did not choose it.
There were also false statements made about body hair, so more micro aggression which you could argue Ora Lin did not know, but there should have been research done since you decided to talk about it and now spread mis information about my people that actually has deep routed history in racism and how black people today view their body hair and society views us. We do not in fact tend to have more body hair, it is just our hair usually is darker and in some cases thicker, making the hair more visible. Seeming like there is more but in reality if you wet the legs of a white woman and black woman you would more clearly see its the same or actually the white woman has more. I have done this, and the body hair movement has shown a lot of white women showing off way more body hair i and my family and friends could ever grow. But maybe it looks more because the hair is more densely packed on the skin? Im not just assuming white women have more hair, i just noticed black womens body hair seems to be more spars. Also your friend said, "poc", so she could have been talking about middle Eastern or Asian women, who also happen to have thicker, darker hair, however it is not clear and could be mistaken for black people as you had already prefaced "black people" and now even if people think this includes anyone non white, black people are also in the mix of the misinformation. I hardly see any black women in the body hair movement and this misinformation is heavily apart of the why. I hope this helps to further prove my point about using harmful acronyms like poc or bipoc. Poc only makes sense for non white and non black people and bipoc also brings its own issues with people who claim black but only because of the 1 grandparent and they grow up going through life as a white person and choose to claim black when it suits them. Again, we did not choose this. Its not much effort to say black people/person and you stand for calling people by pronouns so race shouldnt be difficult. I realise this is long but I think it is important to bring these to light to people who seem worth it. Because you do seem worth it and I want to help white and non black voices who want to speak out about such topics do it accurately and precisely.
Shout to to the comment monitors!!!
Thank you so much, what an excellent series of videos!
Hey Snappy! Could you do makeup/cosmetic history?!!??
Great video, thank you to both of you!
The music in the background is not necessary, and kind of a distraction from the engaging conversation.
I've heard that "Social Darwinism" was not created by Darwin himself, but his theories of biological evolution among animals were wrongfully applied to human social concepts of race and ethnicity. Do you have a source on Darwin himself advocating for "Darwinism" in this context?
Yes yes on the shaved leg example you brought up. Personally as an AFAB Latine I never felt I could participate in the whole "not shaving, fuck the patriarchy!" Bc, even as a young teen, I would get scolded by family members/ have comments made by family members n friends for not shaving. Partly bc of the fetishization of Latina/femme Latines by the media where we're expected to look like Sofia Vergara, but also bc, there was this sense/vibe that we looked 'uglier' / 'less attractive' than white women who don't shave. I could never ONLY get the "oh, are u not shaving as a political statement?" Comment, it was ALWAYS accompanied with "but why do you wanna look like a hairy mexican?"
I'm a white girl, so I'm not recieving the racial stuff, but I hear you on family pressure. My mother started waxing my legs when I didn't shave much as a teenager. As an adult, she's made comments about how "she doesn't mind the hair, but other people will judge me for it". Sometimes the folks close to us make bucking the system even harder.
Second vid in a row I wasn't able to watch because of the music that is too loud and it makes it difficult to focus on what is being said. Too bad because this subject is so interesting and I would love to know more about it.
I used to want to make a ton of Harry Potter inspired clothes. Suffice to say I think making an outfit made of redflags would be less red flaggy.
We love this comment.
sincerely,
V and Ora
How much of this was applicable to the Suffragette movement outside the US? Perhaps a comment should have been made at the beginning that this is pertaining to the US movement specifically...
Thanks for the discussion and education. I find it really frustrating how limited my (white German female) knowledge of history still is o.O Your focus in this video was American suffragettes only, wasn't it? Not that I think European suffragettes were not racist, I ask just for clarification.
Anyway, how would you recognize that one engages with the history in a modern intersectional-critical fashion? Just because someone wears for example the sash doesn't mean they celebrate it, right, if they do it in a critical context? For reference, if you see someone in Germany in a Nazi uniform, it would always be in a critical/artistic context as the symbols are forbidden to wear/show otherwise in Germany. Once I saw a play about the Third Reich and so many actors played Nazi soldiers, everywhere the Swastika ... it was really surreal and really impactful o.O
I think part of the tricky part of determining "how" / in what "context" someone *means* to wear a historical costume (taking the suffragette costume as an example) is that there are no such clear cut laws as there are in Germany regarding Nahtzi uniforms. If you see someone wearing one in Germany, you *automatically know* because of these rules, that it is in a critical context.
But there are no rules that say that you can't wear a suffragette sash (or even far more overtly racist costumes, such as when non-Indigenous people wear Indigenous regalia as a F-ING HALLOWEEN COSTUME), so one has to wonder, "soooo.... are you *aware* that the person/movement you're portraying was racist, or was it just a hole in your historic knowledge and a genuine mistake?"
The way I would go about doing it, if I wanted to portray a suffragette, would possibly be to replace the "Votes For Women" sash with a "Votes for Everyone" or "Votes for All People" sash. The original slogan is iconic enough that I feel like the clear deviation from it would signify that I'm both aware of the issues behind the costume, and that I think that all women regardless of color, and all people regardless of gender deserve the right to vote.
Surely different Suffragettes held different opinions. For instance, the Pankhurst ladies certainly differed politically!Nobody is perfect!
< -- starts shopping for sheep || I've had a lot of discussions in the past about ethical and sustainable textiles. As you noted, even if you make all your own clothes, it is likely that some component somewhere is "tainted." It's hard not to become discouraged. I really enjoy textiles and textile designs from certain eras and locales. I have worn, for example, a Russian peasant blouse out of sheer delight at the embroidery and design lines.. Do I support tsarist autocracy and serfdom? HELL NO! Arguments could also be made about cultural appropriation. Anyway, all this rambling to say that I have struggle with these questions for a long time and still don't have any answers.
It is important to note that although Darwin writes that "man has ultimately become superior to women" because of sexual selection in Descent of Man, he never expressed the superiority of one race over another, quite the contrary. He was an avid abolitionist, and postulated that all races were more or less equally intelligent, and that all humans were part of the same species (which was disputed at the time). What you are a describing is scientific racism, wich came about after Darwin. For some reason, it has become associated directly (and incorrectly) with Darwin in some circles.
While Darwin acknowledge that the races do not have clear defining separation lines he definitely insinuated that they were not equal an intelligence and repeatedly referred to "animals and savages"as being below white people. "savages" meaning Black and indigenous people.. Of course he was not the only one to push the idea of a racial hierarchy he did imply one existed.
We should probably start with those pesky white dresses. They and their materials were acquired by the Queen while visiting Africa and finding them superior in the heat. She brought them home and had more made starting the fashion, and following the tradition stealing from the poor and sharing with the rich (read also royal as they weren’t all always wealthy).
While I agree with you, Black men did the same thing in failing to support women in the movement. This “may” have played into the movement. Women and black men started out working together to get the people and funds and messages out. Men basically cut a deal to give black men the vote and leave ALL women and natives behind. Animosity is a thing. Hell hath no fury as they say.
Also, we had a BIPOC MALE president before we see a female president of any color. None of this is meant as argumentative. Just the opposite, actually. This nation, America, the United States, has been built (on the backs of those who have the least rights to this day) and is controlled by old, rich, white, men. It’s never known anything else. And all people who press against its systems are punished as heavily as possible (Roe). Watch Dave Chappelle’s Netflix specials. He warned us years ago that the #metoo movement would lose us Roe. As a black man who spoke truth to power costing him $50,000,000, he has first hand knowledge of punishment.
Abortion was completely legal BEFORE women started saying crazy things like, “but we’d like a vote, a say in things that matter!” That’s when abortion became illegal. We are controlled by the one body part making us “other”, not men.
All forms of prejudice are used for one thing, CONTROL! Ironically, that’s the very freedom fought for to create this nation. Actually, the very fact we have the freedom to even discuss these subjects is more than most countries in this world. THAT is privilege.
Oy. Feel you. This is why I always recommend Emma Goldman
ANY time you do ANYthing political, you MUST compromise your ideals.
Consider, you enter politics to make the country better. You have a bill that will feed poor children in schools. You can prove that the cost of supplying a free meal is vastly overrun by the future benefits of well-fed kids getting good grades = better jobs = paying more taxes = less poverty =less welfare.
BUT, you must get the bill in committee and the guy in charge of committee is a racist from Alabama who doesn't want to feed poor black kids. He had reasons for this, stupid reasons, but they make sense to him. So this guy tells you that he will support your bill ONLY if you support his bill to mandate christian prayer in schools and outlaw gay meeting on school grounds. If you refuse, he will kill your bill and poor kids will never have a free lunch while he is in office. ever.
What do you do?
If you refuse, not only will you NEVER be able to feed poor kids in school but every bill you present to make the country better will die before it is even voted on. All your good intentions will end.
BUT, if you agree, hoping to overturn his bills later, you feed the poor kids but work to end freedom of religion and freedom of sexual expression.
THESE compromises are what politics are all about.
The Suffrege movement existed ONLY because men allowed it. It passed ONLY because men passed it. To get the Amendment passed, they HAD to compromise. Did you expect her to stand on her principles and kill votes-for-women or should she make a temporary compromise for the bigger picture?
The Peacock Dress by Worth among others, vintage Chanel, Hugo Boss... origin of Adidas and Puma as brands...