jump to navigation

Having A Say, redux (the “missing” post) November 13, 2022

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Books, Changing Perspectives, First Nations, Hope, Life, Meditation, Men, Music, One Hoop, Philosophy, Science, Suffering, Wisdom, Women, Writing, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

This is the “missing” post for Sunday, November 11th. Some passages were previously posted. You can request an audio recording of the practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.)

“If her functioning as a female is not enough to define woman, if we decline also to explain her through ‘the eternal feminine’, and if nevertheless we admit, provisionally, that women do exist, then we must face the question ‘what is a woman’?

To state the question is, to me, to suggest, at once, a preliminary answer. The fact that I ask it is in itself significant. A man would never set out to write a book on the peculiar situation of the human male. But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ‘I am a woman’; on this truth must be based all further discussion. A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual of a certain sex; it goes without saying that he is a man. The terms masculine and feminine are used symmetrically only as a matter of form, as on legal papers. In actuality the relation of the two sexes is not quite like that of two electrical poles, for man represents both the positive and the neutral, as is indicated by the common use of man to designate human beings in general; whereas woman represents only the negative, defined by limiting criteria, without reciprocity. In the midst of an abstract discussion it is vexing to hear a man say: ‘You think thus and so because you are a woman’; but I know that my only defence [sic] is to reply: ‘I think thus and so because it is true,’ thereby removing my subjective self from the argument. It would be out of the question to reply: ‘And you think the contrary because you are a man’, for it is understood that the fact of being a man is no peculiarity.”

– quoted from “Introduction: Woman as Other” in The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir

Almost every January, I ask the question “What is a woman?” Then, at various times throughtout the year, I offer different lives and perspectives that could be considered as answers. But, whenever I address the issue, I recognize that the “controversial” question Simone de Beauvoir posed in 1949, is no less controversial today. In fact, it can seem more controversial today, because it is often used as a “gotcha” question asked by people who have vastly different intentions than Simone de Beauvoir. Remember, she was asking and addressing the question for philosophical insight. And, here I am doing the same.

I know, I know, I’m just asking for trouble here, but please consider a couple of things before moving forward. First, as I just mentioned, this is not the first time – in class or on the blog – that I’ve referenced what it means to be a woman. Second, I’m referencing it here in relation to Patanjali’s Yoga Sūtras. Specifically, I’m referencing the meaning of the word “woman” – or “women,” “wimmin,” “womyn,” “womban,” “womon,” and “womxn” – in relation to Yoga Sūtra 3.17, which indicates that “By making samyama on the sound of a word, one’s perception of its meaning, and one’s reaction to it – three things which are ordinarily confused – one obtains understanding of all sounds uttered by living beings.” [NOTE: “one’s reaction to it” is sometimes translated as “knowledge of it.”]

I absolutely could use a less “controversial” word – as other teachers do. I’ve heard a teacher reference a pencil and another teacher (Vyasa, perhaps) used a cow. In class, I actually cited Swami J, of the Himalayan tradition, who used the example of a table in his commentary on the sūtras. Those are all great examples, simple examples; because, if you know English (assuming you are reading this text in it’s original language), the sight/sound of each of those words is associated with specific objects, which immediately come to mind. If you don’t know a word, it is meaningless to you. Nothing comes to mind or you think of something that feels off, not quite right. But, you don’t know the word, so you need more information.

On the flip side, you can know the word and still need more information, because your perception of what I mean may not be the same as mine. We may not have the same object(s) in mind. However, by using our supernormal power of words, we can come to an agreement about the qualities that make up the concept that exists in the world (i.e., the pencil-ness, cow-ness, and/or table-ness of the thing). In other words, we can go deeper into our understanding of what makes something what we perceive/understand it to be.

While it seems like people have been going deeper into our understanding of what it means to be a woman since the dawn of time (or, at the very least, since recorded history), there’s always the possibility — not to mention the fear — that someone will completely miss the point.

“The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow in our souls. Every truth we see is ours to give the world, not to keep to oursleves along, for in so doing we cheat humanity out of their rights and check our own development.

quoted from Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s speech at the National American Woman Suffrage Association convention (and birthday celebration for Susan B. Anthony), February 18, 1890

If we just stick with modern (Western) history, the question of what it means to be a woman is a question that contains multitudes. For instance, when we talk about Miss Maria Mitchell and Rabbi Regina Jonas, the question becomes about their vocations. In a conversation about Simone de Beauvoir, Virginia Woolf, and Mary Oliver, the question becomes about upbringing and sex(uality). For Edna St. Vincent Millay and Zitkála-Šá, as well as for Gwendolyn Brooks, Louise Erdrich, Nikki Giovanni, and so many others, the question becomes about culture, race, and behavior (including sex and sexuality). Then the conversation turns to health and well-being, especially mental health, when we focus on Bertha Pappenheim (“Anna O”). We can easily pickup all of those threads if we are discussion Lorraine Hansberry, Maya Angelou, or Ntozake Shange, because their lives prove that the question of what it means to be a woman is always about all of those things – and also about rights and responsibilities. We can start our conversation about what the word means, to us and to others, at any one of those intersecting points. However, since Saturday was the anniversary of the birth of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, let’s start with the issue of rights and responsibilities.

Born November 12, 1815, in Johnstown, New York, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a social activist, abolitionist, and suffragist. While she was one of the most influential leaders of the women’s rights movement, she does not fit the stereotypical image of a “women’s liber” or a “man-hating feminist.” She was, for example, no Susan B. Anthony. However, one could argue that there would have been no Susan B. Anthony — as she is remembered today — without Elizabeth Cady Stanton. While their backgrounds and life choices were different, they were united in their quest for equal rights.

“If I were to draw up a set of rules for the guidance of reformers, such as Franklin and other celebrities tell us they did for their own use, I should put at the head of the list: Do all you can, no matter what, to get people to think on your reform, and then, if your reform is good, it will come about in due season.”

– quoted from a diary entry dated “Cleveland, August 20 [1888]” by Elizabeth Cady Stanton (as published in Elizabeth Cady Stanton As Revealed in Her Letterz, Diary and Reminiscences, Edited by Theodore Stanton and Harriot Stanton Blatch, Volume Two])

Elizabeth Cady grew up in a wealthy family with a conservative lawyer for a father (Daniel Cady) and and a very progressive abolitionist mother (Margaret Livingston Cady). Some biographers say that the Cady family had servants, at least three of whom were African American. At least one of those “servants” (Peter Teabout) was actually enslaved and it was in his company that she and her sisters sometimes attended church. 

It seems that it was just her and her sisters that sat in the back pews of the church. While she was the seventh of eleven children, six of her siblings, including all of her brothers, died before reaching adulthood. Her last brother died when she was around ten and she responded to her parents’ grief by stating that she would live the lives her brothers would not get a chance to live. Her father’s response, that he wished she were a boy, was the first time she felt there was a difference between her sisters and her brothers. 

Despite the perceived difference between the siblings, Elizabeth Cady was well-educated — for a girl of her time — and received high marks and recognition in her advanced classes. She even convinced her father to send her to Troy Female Seminary, where she became actively interested in the abolitionist movement. It was through the seminary and the abolitionis movement that she and befriended Frederick Douglass. It was also the way she met her greatest collaborators in life: Henry Brewster Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

“This can already be seen in the different reception given a new citizen of the world. If the father or someone else asked what ‘it’ was after a successful birth, the answer might be either the satisfied report of a boy, or—with pronounced sympathy for the disappointment— ‘Nothing, a girl,’ or ‘Only a girl.’”

– Bertha Pappenheim (b. 02/27/1859) as quoted in The Jewish Woman: New Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Koultun

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.”

– quoted from “Part IV – The Formative Years: Chapter XII. Childhood” in The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir (b. 01/09/1908)

Elizabeth Cady and Henrey Brewster Stanton met at the home of her  first cousin, Gerrit Smith (son of her maternal aunt), who was a member of the United States House of Representatives and one of the “Secret Six,” who funded John Brown’s 1859 raid on Harper’s Ferry, which initiated the revolt that was a prelude to the Civil War. At the time that they met, Henry Brewster Stanton was an attorny, abolitionist, and social reformer, who would go on to become a journalist and politician. Some say his support of the suffragist movement was tangential, but no one can argue that it was instrumental. It was instrumental on many levels, including the fact that he unconditionally supported his wife.

When they married in 1840, the couple omitted the word “obey” from their vows — which was a common Quaker tradition, although neither of them were Quakers. Elizabeth Cady took her husband’s surname, but she was never known simply as “Mrs. Henry B. Stanton;” she was always, in some way, recognized as “Cady Stanton.” But the exclusion or inclusion of a single word, did not diminish the couples union. Nor did it diminish her role in the household.

“First, no woman should say, ‘I am but a woman!’ But a woman! What more can you ask to be? Born a woman — born with the average brain of humanity — born with more than the average heart — if you are mortal, what higher destiny could you have? No matter where you are nor what you are, you are power.”

– quoted from Maria Mitchell: Life, Letters, and Journals by Maria Mitchell (b. 08/01/1818)

Mrs. Cady Stanton was a proud wife and mother of seven. Contrary to the social norms of the time, she recognized that healthy women had similar desires as healthy men; believed women should control a couple’s sexual relationships; and proclaimed a man’s “drunkeness” as grounds for divorce (or, at the very least, abstinance). She also belived that a woman should absolutely have dominion over her body when it came to childbearing. She was equally as bold about declaring her motherhood (when others were more demure silent) and would raise a red or white flag in front of her house depending on the sex of her newborn child. 

Of course, her “voluntary motherhood” required a compromise when it came to social reform and that compromise required her to be at home when her husband was away. While Henry Brewster Stanton traveled ten months out of the year in the 1850’s, Elizabeth Cady Stanton felt she was “a caged lioness.” However, her partnership with Ms. Anthony made the compromise less restrictive. Whenever the family moved, they set up a room for Susan B. Anthony and the women figured out the best way to work towards their goals: 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote; Susan B. Anthony organized and spoke.

“Eventually Anthony supplanted Henry in Elizabeth’s affections. Both Henry and Susan moved in and out of her life and her household, but overall, Stanton probably spent more hours and days with Anthony than any other adult.”

– quoted from the “Methodological Note: Stanton in Psychological Perspective” section of In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Elisabeth Griffith

The collaboration between Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not restricted to speeches. They co-founded the New York Women’s State Temperance Society – after Anthony was prevented from speaking at a temperance conference because she was female – and the Women’s Loyal National League in 1863. The league, which used different iterations of the name, was specifically formed to lobby for the abolition of slavery. At one time they collected almost 40,000 signatures in support of abolition, which was the largest petition drive in United States history at that time. They also initiated the American Equal Rights Association (1866) and founded the National Woman Suffrage Association (1869).

On January 8, 1868, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton started publishing the weekly paper The Revolution. The paper’s motto was “Men, their rights and nothing more; Women, their rights and nothing less.” In addition to women’s rights and the suffrage movement, the paper covered general politics, the labor movement, and finance. Ms. Anthony ran the business end of things. Mrs. Cady Stanton co-edited the newspaper with the abolitionist minister Parker Pillsbury. The initially received funding from the transportation entrepreneur George Francis Train – who shared their views on women’s rights, but not on abolition – but eventually transferred control of the paper to the wealthy writer and activist Laura Curtis Bullard, who toned “the revolution” down a bit.

The ladies that started it, however, did not tone down at all.

“He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies, which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated, but deemed of little account in man.”

 

quoted from the The Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with Mary Ann M’Clintock

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was actively engaged in the fight for civil rights long before meeting Susan B. Anthony. Along with Lucretia Coffin Mott and Martha Coffin Wright, she organized the Seneca Falls Convention, which was the first women’s rights convention organized by women and was the primary author of the Declaration of Sentiments. One hundred of the approximately 300 attendees to the conference signed the declaration, which Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with assistance from Mary Ann M’Clintock, had modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Mrs. Cady Stanton (and her sister, Harriet Cady Eaton), Mrs. M’Clintock (plus her daughters Elizabeth W. and Mary M’Clintock and her half-sister, Margaret Pryor), Mrs. Mott, and and Mrs. Wright were among the 68 female signers; Frederick Douglass, Thomas M’Clintock, and James Mott were among the the 32 male signers.

Frederick Douglass’s name on the Declaration of Sentiments was not an accident or random happenstance. He and Mrs. Cady Stanton met early in her crusade for universal suffrage and he was one of her staunch supporters during the Seneca Falls Convention. In fact, some historians note that it was his very vocal support that led to the acceptance of the Declaration. While his support for women’s suffrage did not wane, he, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony (with whom he would also eventually befriend) did temporarily break away from each other when the issue of suffrage was divided over race and gender. He also called out E. Cady Stanton for using racist terms about Black and Asian men, when it looked like they might get the vote before (white) women. 

That divide between the three friends is a great way to highlight the fact that the fight for voting rights has always marginalized already marginalized people. It has asked people to define themselves as one thing over the other. This, as many scholars have pointed out, is not something straight, white, Christian males in America have historically had to do. They can just be “men” and everything else is understood as a foregone conclusion.

Marginalized people, however, have had to “pick one” all the time. This was especially true in the 19th century, when the presence of Black women was desired by both sides of the suffrage movement. Yet, to deny one side of themselves meant that they could be excluded from voting; either because they were Black… or because they were a woman.

Susan B. Anthony forced this issue into the courts when she and fourteen other women attempted to vote in Rochester, New York, in 1872. She was arrested, indicted, “tried,” and convicted during the very public and very publicized 1873 criminal trial (United States v. Susan B. Anthony). The case hinged on the definition of a citizen (as it related to the 14th Amendment) and the definition of a woman. After establishing that “the defendant was, on the 5th of November, 1872, a woman,” the judge instructed the all male jury – all male because women were prohibited from serving on juries – to find the defendant guilty without discussion or deliberation, which they did. Ms. Anthony was instructed to pay a fine, of $100 plus court cases, which she did not.

It’s unclear how, exactly, they determined that she was a woman on the date in question.

“U. S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Can I provide a definition? [Senator Blackburn confirms.] No. I can’t.

U. S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): You can’t?

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.

U. S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): So, you believe the word ‘woman’ is so unclear and controversial that you can’t give me a definition?

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is, I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide….”

– quoted from the confirmation hearing of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Ketanji Brown Jackson (Tuesday, March 22, 2022)

Fast forward to the 21st century, where Beyonce, Taylor Swift, and Janelle Monet sing lyrics that seem to be lifted directly from the Declaration of Sentiments or Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s diary – and to that moment when then-Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was being interviewed to be the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. Fast forward to that moment, when two very different women faced the question about the definition (the meaning) of the word woman.

When I heard Senator Marsha Blackburn’s question, I heard it as so many people heard it: as that “gotcha” question some people like to ask these days. I also heard it, as so many others have heard it throughout history, as a pick-a-side question. The sides might be defined in different ways now, versus in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but it still marginalizes people who are already marginalized. What I did not hear was a question asked with a sincere interest in the inquiry. What I did not hear was a question posed with an interest in how any of us decides on our answers.

Many people, Senator Blackburn included, have said that Supreme Court Justice Brown Jackson did not answer the question. Others have pointed out that she absolutely answered the question – she just didn’t answer the question with either/any of the answers they wanted to hear. It doesn’t help that many media outlets only reported a portion of her answer. In fact, most major outlets only quoted her as saying, “I’m not a biologist.” 

Which, I think we can all agree is true.

I also think, though, that the issue isn’t whether or not Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a biologist. And, despite the way the exchange was reported, the issue isn’t even whether or not being a biologist is relevant. The relevant part,in that case, was how a judge, or justice, defines things (i.e., words) as it relates to the law and specific contexts related to the law. As then-Judge Brown Jackson pointed out, the role of judges, or justices, is to look at the differing definitions (when there is a dispute),the arguments behind the definitions, and the law. In other words, they focus-concentrate-meditate on the word, people’s understandings of the word, and the related (or relevant) qualities (as they apply to the law).

Take a moment, to think apply the tool of samyama to the word “woman” (or any of the other aforementioned variations of the theme)*:

  • What, or who, comes to mind? 

  • What’s your “standard” for a woman? 

  • How many women do you know that don’t fit your exact standard? 

  • What are the overlapping qualities that apply to your “standard” and also to those outside of your standard?

  • How do you know you know if someone has those overlapping qualities?

*NOTE: This is a deliberately simple rubric, so that you can decide on attributes. If your only attribute is “sex/female,” you could skip the first two questions or you could layout a biological definition of female.

Yoga Sūtra 3.35: hṛdaye cittasaṃvit

– “By making samyama on the heart, one gains knowledge of the contents of the mind.”

Saturday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify.

NOTE: YouTube features several extra videos that are not available on Spotify. Some are speeches worth hearing. Some are music videos worth seeing. To make up the difference, the Spotify playlist has its own Easter egg.

ERRATA: The original post linked to the wrong YouTube playlist. My apologies for the inconvenience.

“If I am to confess what drove me, as a woman, to become a rabbi, two things come to mind. My belief in God’s calling and my love of my fellow man. God has bestowed on each one of us special skills and vocations without stopping to ask about our gender. This means each one of us, whether man or woman, has a duty to create and work in accordance with those God-given skills.”

– quoted from the doctoral thesis entitled “May a woman hold rabbinic office?” by Rabbi Regina Jonas (b. 08/03/1902)

### LET’S GET LOUD ~JL ###

Words One Lives By (the “missing” Wednesday post) February 22, 2022

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Art, Books, Changing Perspectives, Dharma, Faith, First Nations, Gratitude, Healing Stories, Hope, Life, Love, Men, Movies, Music, One Hoop, Pain, Peace, Philosophy, Suffering, Super Heroes, Tragedy, Wisdom, Women, Writing, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

This is the “missing” post for Wednesday, February 16th, which was Elizabeth Peratrovich Day! You can request an audio recording of this practices via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.)

“a káa ñududziteeyi yoo ý’atánk (noun) law, words one lives by

  • Tléil oowaa wé aan káa ñududziteeyi yoo ý’atánk géide

    ñudunoogú. It is wrong to act against the law of the land

*

– quoted from Dictionary of Tlingit by Keri Edwards, Anita Lafferty, John Marks, June Pegues, Helen Sarabia, Bessie Colley, David Katzeek, Fred White, Jeff Leer

Some of the best themes, in my opinion, come from conversations. Take Wednesday’s theme, for instance. I could go into any number of reasons why it hasn’t come up before – and go back to several conversations over the years as to how and why it could have come up. Ultimately, however, I was primed to notice certain things this year – when there was an opening in my calendar.

First, there was a February 10th text message from a friend (A), kind of wondering why I hadn’t mentioned that the Dawes Act (also  known as the General Allotment Act) passed on February 8, 1887. The legislation allowed the United States government to seize and break up tribal land and, honestly, I would much rather spend the 8th focused on how we can come together. Then, a couple of days later, after a practice where the weekly sūtra lined up perfectly with the birthday of President Abraham Lincoln, one of my yoga buddies (J) mentioned that some languages don’t have words for “freedom” and “liberation.” I thought that was interesting, but didn’t agree that that meant those communities didn’t value freedom – just, perhaps, that the didn’t think of freedom and liberation in a legal sense, as we do in the United States. After all, why would so many ancient texts (like the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sūtras, the Upanishads, the Ashtavakra Gita, the Torah, and so many Buddhist texts) spend so much time on the subject of freedom and liberation if the concepts weren’t important? But, I got my friends meaning – especially, because (as I’ve mentioned several times this month) some words just don’t translate into English.

Then, I pseudo-randomly decided to watch a discussion related to the fact that the team previously known as “The Washington Football Team” changed their name to the “Washington Commanders” [insert your favorite pun here]. The discussion was between Roy Wood Jr. (of The Daily Show with Trevor Noah); sports journalist Bomani Jones, and Crystal Echo Hawk, executive director of IllumiNative and a Pawnee citizen. After watching the slightly over 48 minutes of conversation, I probably spent twice that amount of time ranting (via text) to my brother about how there could possibly be (as statistics indicate) people in this country that don’t know Native people exist… like still exist. It was just hard to wrap my brain around the idea that just by virtue of the places I’ve lived, I’ve known more people than others. (Note, this is not the first time such statistics have flabbergasted me.) Finally, as I was thinking about what I would do for Wednesday’s practice, I came across this 1945 civil rights anniversary – and I thought it was going to be a story we all (already) knew.

“moksha (mokṣa), mokkho, mōkṣa, moksh, mōkṣaṁ, mōkaśa, mokhya, mokshamu,

vimoksha, vimukti, vīdupēru,

kaivalya, apavarga, mukti,

nihsreyasa, and/or nirvana”

*

– words related to the end of suffering, the end of ignorance, and the end of the reincarnation cycle that are often translated into English as “freedom,” “emancipation,” “enlightenment,” “liberation,” “release,” and/or “enlightenment”

 

Wednesday’s class was another “answer” to the Tuesday riddle (Always old, sometimes new…). It was based on a story that I thought I knew – a story, maybe, that you think you know too. It’s a story about the “beginning” of the civil rights movement in the United States and the story about the beginning of the end of segregation and “Jim Crow” laws. It’s a story about the first anti-discrimination law in the United States (and its territories).

Knowing that, just that, you may be scrambling through your knowledge of history (and law) and thinking about what came first in the timeline of the American Civil Rights Movement. But, I’m going to ask you to set aside most of what you know – just for a moment. I’m going to ask you to set aside what immediately comes to most people’s minds when they think about discrimination and Jim Crow laws. Because, this is a story that (probably) predates what most of us learned in school. It’s a story that dates back to the early 1900’s, not the 1950’s or 60’s – and really has nothing to do with the South, or African-Americans. It’s a story about people who, to this day, are still fighting for their rights: Indigenous and aboriginal people.

That’s right, the first (20th century) state or territorial anti-discrimination law in the United States was specifically intended to criminalize discrimination against indigenous people. Specifically, the Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945 (also known as the Anti-Discrimination Law of 1945) banned discrimination against individuals in public spaces based on race. It was signed into law on Friday, February 16, 1945, by then Governor Ernest Gruening. Prior to the enactment of the new law, many white-owned Alaskan businesses segregated Alaska Natives and/or completely denied them service. People were told they could not live and/or work in some areas of the city. Some even went so far as to deny employment based on race and would advertise “All White Help.” Just like in the South, there were lots of others signs that explicitly stated that some people had the same status as dogs.

Although he supported the bill, the governor – who would become one of the first Alaskan senators (1959-1969) – was not a resident of the territory nor someone being directly affected by the discrimination that the law eventually criminalized. But when those affected spoke, he listened. One of the people to whom he listened was Roy Peratrovich, then president of the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB). Another person the governor not only heard, and also echoed, was Elizabeth Peratrovich, then president of the Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS). Both Mr. and Mrs. Peratrovich were members of the Tlingit nation and, by all accounts, Elizabeth Peratrovich was someone whose very presence commanded everyone’s attention.

But, let me not get ahead of the story.

“With measured composure, [Elizabeth Peratrovich] flawlessly articulated the extent of discrimination against Alaska Natives. ‘There are three kinds of persons who practice discrimination. First, the politician who wants to maintain an inferior minority group so that he can always promise them something. Second, the Mr. and Mrs. Jones who aren’t quite sure of their social position and who are nice to you on one occasion and can’t see you on others, depending on who they are with. Third, the great Superman who believes in the superiority of the white race.'”

*

–  quoted from the February 16, 2019 Indian Country Today article entitled “February 16 in Alaska honors Tlingit activist on ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day’: Anchorage School District, ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day provides an opportunity to remind the public of the invaluable contribution of this Native Alaskan leader.'” by Leslie Logan

Similar to what happened in the Lower 48, the first part of the battle around civil rights in Alaska was related to education. The Nelson Act of 1905 established funding and guidelines for segregated schools in Alaska (as well as for “the care and maintenance of insane persons in said district… [and] the construction and maintenance of wagon roads, bridges, and trails in said district”). It explicitly stated that  the schools would be established and supervised by a board “elected annually by the vote of all adults who are citizens of the United States or who have declared their intention to become such and who are residents of the school district.” The problem, of course, was that many of the affected parents were not considered citizens even though they had lived in the area prior to the government being established. So, they couldn’t vote and the couldn’t be on the board. In other words, they had no say over the education of their children. A “path to citizenship” would eventually open up in 1915, but it would require a person to obtain the endorsement of 5 white citizens – which was challenging, given segregation – and to cut “all tribal relationships and adapted the habits of a civilized life[,]” which people were (understandably) reluctant to do.

In 1908, William Paul, who was the first Tlingit attorney in Alaska, won a case in Ketchikan (Tlingit: Kichx̱áan) that allowed mixed heritage children to attend regular public school. Despite the victory, there was still segregation in most public spaces and so the fight continued. In 1912, thirteen men from a private college in Sitka (Tlingit: Sheetʼká; Russian: Ситка) founded the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB), which pushed wider access to education, voting rights, desegregation, social services, and land rights. In 1915, the Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANB), joined the fight. By the 1920’s, Mr. Paul and his older brother Louis were active ANB members. In 1929, the ANB and ANS successful boycotted a segregated movie theatre in Juneau (Tlingit: Dzánti K’ihéeni) and got the establishment to desegregate.

Other theatre’s followed suit; however, even when the buildings were desegregated, the seating areas were still segregated. In 1944, Alberta Schenck, a sixteen-year old mixed-heritage member of the Inupiat nation, had a part-time job as an usher at the Alaska Dream Theatre in Nome (Inupiaq: Sitŋasuaq). Part of her job was to make sure non-white customers sat in the designated / segregated area. When she complained about the segregation, she was fired. After she was fired, the determined teenager did two things: she wrote an essay that appeared in the op-ed section of the newspaper and she showed up at her former place of employment with a white army sergeant as her date. Naturally, they sat in the “Whites Only” section. When the couple refused to move, the police were called to arrest Alberta Schenck. Her arrest fired up the people and, once she was released, she wrote a letter to Governor Ernest Gruening – whose response included the reintroduction of anti-discrimination legislation.

Section 2. Any person who shall violate or aid or incite a violation of said full and equal enjoyment; or any person who shall display any printed or written sign indicating a discrimination on racial grounds of said full and equal enjoyment, for each day for which said sign is displayed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than thirty (30) days or fined not more than two hundred fifty ($250.00) dollars, or both.”

*

– quoted from the “Penalties” section of Chapter 2 of Anti-Discrimination Act, House Bill 14, from Session Laws of Alaska, 1945

Around the same time the activists started the boycott in Juneau, the Peratrovich’s were getting married – and encountering racism. Of course, the young couple had dealt with racism throughout their young lives. Roy, after all, was born in 1908 – the same year William Paul won his landmark desegregation case – and Elizabeth was born in 1911 – the year before the formation of the ANB. Both were of mixed heritage and initially met, as children, in Klawock (Tlingit: Láwaak), a small town on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island.  In some ways, they had similar schooling experiences. For her part, though, Elizabeth was surprised to find, when she first started school, that there were no Native Alaska teachers and “speaking Tlingit was not allowed.” In fact, students speaking Native languages were often punished. Eventually, she would go to her father’s alma mater and Roy went away to a boarding school in Oregon. It would be several years before they reconnected and, of course, they would be different versions of themselves.

Many people make a point to emphasize Elizabeth Peratrovich’s birth date, July 4th, as it seems she was destined to bring people more liberation and freedom. It was not only her birth date, however, that made her memorable. There was also the combination of her demeanor and her efforts. Born under problematic circumstances, in Petersburg (Tlingit: Séet Ká or Gantiyaakw Séedi “Steamboat Channel”), Alaska, she was mixed heritage and taken to the Salvation Army, where she was adopted by Andrew and Jean Wanamaker (née Williams). The Wanamakers were also members of the Tlingit nation and Mr. Wanamaker, who had attended the aforementioned private school in Sitka, was a charter member of the ANB and a lay minister of the Presbyterian Church. The Wanamaker’s gave their daughter an English name (Elizabeth Jean) and a Tlingit name (Ḵaax̲gal.aat). 

“Understanding the meanings of Tlingit names can be difficult. Lance Twitchell, assistant professor of Alaska Native languages at the University of Alaska Southeast, says Andrew’s Tlingit name, Chalyee Éesh, means ‘the father of Chalyee,’ which may mean ‘beneath the halibut.’ Jeans’s name, Shaax̲aatk’í, means ‘root of all women.’ Elizabeth’s Tlingit names was Ḵaax̲gal.aat, which may mean ‘person who packs for themselves.'”

*

– quoted from “2. Growing Up the Alaska Native Way” in Fighter in Velvet Gloves: Alaska Civil Rights Hero Elizabeth Peratrovich by Annie Boochever with Roy Peratrovich Jr.

Roy Peratrovich’s Tlingit name was Lk’uteen.

The Peratrovich’s were very active in their community. They had three children (Loretta Montgomery, Roy Jr., and Frank); Elizabeth attended the Presbyterian Church; and Roy was repeatedly elected mayor of Klawock. They moved to Juneau, in part, to be more involved in the movement and became the first Indigenous people to live in a neighborhood that was not specifically designated as “Native.” Eventually, their second child (Roy Jr,) would be one of the first Indigenous children to attend a public school. (He would also write parts of a book about his mother’s story.)

After she and her husband helped to draft the anti-discrimination bill, Elizabeth Peratrovich had the opportunity to testify in front of the Alaskan legislature. Her efforts had already earned her a great ally in the governor. However, they also drew the attention of her own personal “master teacher / precious jewel” in the form of a territorial senator named Allen Shattuck, who opposed the anti-discrimination legislation from start to finish. Throughout the public hearing in 1945, the senator challenged Mrs. Peratrovich and questioned her authority to speak to the legislature. I can only imagine that she found him infuriating and annoying, but her responses to him were rational and measured. Her words convince me that underneath those velvet gloves, she had an iron fist.

“Shattuck is on the record as having stated: ‘The races should be kept further apart. Who are these people, barely out of savagery, who want to associate with us whites with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind us?’

Peratrovich was not daunted by the derision and responded to Shattuck in her testimony, famously stating: ‘I, who am barely out of savagery, would have to remind gentlemen with 5,000 years of recorded civilization behind them of our Bill of Rights.’”

*

–  quoted from the February 16, 2019 Indian Country Today article entitled “February 16 in Alaska honors Tlingit activist on ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day’: Anchorage School District, ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day provides an opportunity to remind the public of the invaluable contribution of this Native Alaskan leader.'” by Leslie Logan

Media and eyewitness accounts of the senate hearing indicated that pretty much everyone was moved by the words of Elizabeth Peratrovich. There were descriptions of people cheering, applauding, and even crying. When the anti-discrimination bill passed, with a vote of 11 to 5, on February 8, 1945, I can only imagine that Allen Shattuck looked like he was tasting something bitter. My guess is that he was further chagrined by Governor Gruening’s statement that “Although we cannot by legislation eliminate racial prejudice in public places from the minds of men, legislation is useful to stop acts of discrimination.” Those words, as you will see, mirrored the closing statements of Mrs. Peratrovich.

Many people in Alaska credit Elizabeth Peratrovich with ending (legal) school segregation and discrimination in public places. Note, this was nineteen years before similar legislation would be signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson – and, in both cases, many people participated in the process. In April of 1988, then Alaska Governor Steve Cowper established April 21 as “Elizabeth Peratrovich Day.” The date was later changed to February 16th, so that it would coincide with the anniversary of the signing of the anti-discrimination legislation. The civil rights activist has been honored in many other ways including with a Google Doodle designed by Tlingit artist Michaela Goade (who is also a member of Haida). The doodle appeared in the United States and Canada on December 30, 2020, the anniversary of the date in 1941 when Roy and Elizabeth Peratrovich decided to petition the governor because they were sick of the “No Natives Allowed” signs. Earlier in 2020, Mrs. Peratrovich was also depicted on the reverse of the revised Sacagawea dollar coin.

The “golden dollar” coin was first issued by the United States Mint in 2000, and then minted for general circulation in 2002. General circulation was briefly halted, in 2008, and then reinstated in 2012. The coin was intended as a replacement for the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin and there was a lot of debate about who (or what) would appear on the face of the coin. One fairly popular idea was that it should be a Statue of Liberty coin, but the Dollar Coin Design Advisory Committee recommended a coin to honor the Shoshone guide Sacagawea, essentially making her the first mother – and the first working mom – depicted on U. S. currency. With the assistance of a Shoshone-Bannock/Cree model named Randy’L He-dow Teton, the sculptor Glenna Goodacre designed the obverse picture of Sacagawea and her son Jean Baptiste Charbonneau. Thomas D. Rogers Sr., a U. S. mint sculptor-engraver designed the original reverse picture of a soaring eagle. 

On September 20, 2007, President George W. Bush signed what is known as the Native American $1 Coin Act, which allowed for changes in the original design of the Sacagawea dollar coin. Those changes included provisions for the reverse design to be changed every year, beginning in 2009. The United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the Native American Caucus and the National Congress of American Indians appoint a liaison (to the U. S. Mint), who works with the National Museum of the American Indian, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee to select potential ideas and the ultimate design. Since 2009, the reverse has depicted:

  • the “Three Sisters” (winter squash, maize, and climbing beans);
  • the “Great Tree of Peace” (symbolized by the Hiawatha Belt wrapped around five arrows, above the words “HAUDENOSAUNEE*” and “GREAT LAW OF PEACE”);
  • the hands of the Supreme Sachem Ousamequin Massasoit and Governor John Carver, symbolically passing the ceremonial peace pipe after the initiation of the first formal written peace alliance between the Wampanoag tribe and the European settlers (in 1621);
  • a Native man and horses to symbolize trade;
  • a turkey, a howling wolf, a turtle, and thirteen stars to symbolize the 1778 treaty between the Delaware Nations** and the colonies; 
  • a Native couple offering hospitality, in the form of a peace pipe and provisions, with a stylized image of a compass pointing NW to symbolize the Lewis and Clark Expedition;
  • a steelworker over the New York City skyline to honor the Kahnawake Mohawk and Mohawk Akwesasne communities whose “high iron” construction work helped build of New York City bridges and skyscrapers, beginning in the 19th century;
  • a World War I era helmet and a World War II era helmet laid over two feathers in the shape of a “V” to honor the over 12,000 World War I code talkers who served during World War I and the over 44,000 who served during World War II***;
  • Sequoyah writing, “Sequoyah from Cherokee Nation” in Cherokee syllabary, the written language he devised – which created the opportunity for a new form of journalism and diplomacy;
  • three images of Jim Thorpe, the Olympian and professional athlete who was a member of the Sac and Fox Nation and whose given name was Wa-Tho-Huk (“Bright Path”);
  • symbols of Native contributions to space exploration, including depictions of the 2002 space walks of Captain John Herrington, of the Chickasaw Nation, and Mary Golda Ross, of the Cherokee Nation, who is recognized as the first female engineer at Lockheed Corporation and the first Native female engineer in the United States;
  • civil rights activist Elizabeth Peratrovich depicted with a stylized raven, a symbol of the Tlingit Raven moiety;
  • two eagle feathers and five stars, surrounded by a hoop, to honor “distinguished military service since 1775;”
  • Brevet brigadier general Ely Samuel Parker, born Hasanoanda (Tonawanda Seneca), later known as Donehogawa, with writing utensil and book in hand – as if he were writing the final draft of the Confederate surrender terms at Appomattox, as he did while serving as adjutant and secretary to General Ulysses S. Grant

All of the coins listed above are legal U. S. tender, however, they are produced as collectibles and often only available online. While you could use them for your next purchase, it is most likely that the person at the register has never seen anything other than the original Sacagawea.

“Senator Shattuck asked, in what was described as combative in tone, if she thought the proposed bill would eliminate discrimination. Peratrovich responded, ‘Do your laws against larceny and even murder prevent those crimes? No law will eliminate crimes but at least you as legislators can assert to the world that you recognize the evil of the present situation and speak your intent to help us overcome discrimination.'”

*

–  quoted from the February 16, 2019 Indian Country Today article entitled “February 16 in Alaska honors Tlingit activist on ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day’: Anchorage School District, ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day provides an opportunity to remind the public of the invaluable contribution of this Native Alaskan leader.'” by Leslie Logan

Wednesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify

Musical Note: With the exception of the fourteenth and twenty-first tracks, all the music on the playlist features musicians and/or groups recognized by the Native American Music Awards (NAMA), which awards “Nammy’s” for styles of music associated with Native Americans and First Nations and to nominees who are Native American or when at least one member in a group or band is from a State for Federally recognized tribe. Most of the songs feature people who have been inducted into the Native American Music Awards Hall of Fame or have been awarded NAMA Lifetime Achievement Awards. Some songs simply won a Nammy (or two). To my knowledge, I only covered ten (maybe eleven) nations. I wanted to include “One World (We Are One)” – which is the result of a collaboration between Taboo, IllumiNative and Mag 7 – but the song was not available on Spotify.

 

*NOTE: Haudenosaunee literally means “people who build a house” or “people of the longhouse” and refers to the Iroquois confederacy, which is comprised of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca people and, as of 1722, the Iroquoian-speaking Tuscarora people. The indigenous confederacy was initially known to the English as “The Five Nations” – hence the five arrows on the coin – and later as “The Six Nations.”

**NOTE: The Delaware Nation are sometimes known as the three Clans of the Lenape: the Monsi (Munsee) or Wolf, the Unami or Turtle, and the Unilactigo or Turkey. Today the clans are known as the Tùkwsit (Wolf Clan), Pùkuwànko (Turtle Clan), and Pële (Turkey Clan) – with the Delaware Nation being the Pùkuwànko (Turtle Clan).

*** NOTE: Approximately 9% of the overall U. S. population was actively serving in the U. S. military by September 1945. On the flip side, over 12% of the First Nations population, from a variety of communities, served as code talkers.

“According to the Anchorage School District, ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day provides an opportunity to remind the public of the invaluable contribution of this Native Alaskan leader who was an advocate for Native citizens and their rights. This courageous woman could not remain silent about injustice, prejudice, and discrimination.’ A 2012 school district board resolution stated: ‘Because of her eloquent and courageous fight for justice for all, today’s Alaskans do not tolerate the blatant discrimination that once existed in our state.’”

*

–  quoted from the February 16, 2019 Indian Country Today article entitled “February 16 in Alaska honors Tlingit activist on ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day’: Anchorage School District, ‘Elizabeth Peratrovich Day provides an opportunity to remind the public of the invaluable contribution of this Native Alaskan leader.'” by Leslie Logan

*

*

### breath is daséikw is life ###

I Hope You See The Light (the “missing” Tuesday post) February 17, 2022

Posted by ajoyfulpractice in "Impossible" People, Art, Books, Buddhism, Changing Perspectives, Depression, Faith, Food, Gratitude, Healing Stories, Hope, Life, Loss, Love, Music, Mysticism, New Year, Pain, Peace, Philosophy, Religion, Science, Suffering, Tragedy, Wisdom, Women, Writing, Yoga.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

My apologies for the delay, but I was not feeling 100% this week. Here, finally, is the “missing” post for Tuesday, February 15th. You can request an audio recording of the practice via a comment below or (for a slightly faster reply) you can email me at myra (at) ajoyfulpractice.com.

In the spirit of generosity (“dana”), the Zoom classes, recordings, and blog posts are freely given and freely received. If you are able to support these teachings, please do so as your heart moves you. (NOTE: You can donate even if you are “attending” a practice that is not designated as a “Common Ground Meditation Center” practice, or you can purchase class(es). Donations are tax deductible; class purchases are not necessarily deductible.

Check out the “Class Schedules” calendar for upcoming classes.)

“Always old, sometimes new…”

*

– a riddle* (read post for clues, see the end for the answer)

Philosophically speaking, part of our yoga practice is about bring awareness to what we know – or what we think we know – about ourselves and the world around us. Once we do that, we have begun the process of recognizing how what we know or think we know determines our actions, our thoughts, our words, our deeds. Our beliefs influence the we interact with ourselves, with others, and with our environment. Once we really get into it, we also start to notice when – or if – we incorporate new information into our belief system; thereby adjusting our actions as we grow and mature.

At some point, we may start to notice how our experiences shape our beliefs and how our experiences and beliefs determine what we chose to do on any given day. Hopefully, we also recognize that other people make other choices based on the their beliefs and experiences. If we can see that, be open to the reality of that, and maybe dig a little deeper into that reality, we gain better understanding of ourselves (and maybe of the world). In other words, we gain insight.

Vipassanā is a Buddhist meditation technique that has also become a tradition. It literally means “to see in a special way” and can also be translated as “special, super seeing.” In English, however, it is usually translated as “insight.” This insight is achieved by sitting, breathing, and watching the mind-body without judging the mind-body. Part of the practice is even to recognize when you are judging and, therefore, recognizing when you are getting in your own way. It is a practice of observation – which is also part of our yoga practice.

“You cannot teach a man anything. You can only help him to find it within himself.”

*

– Galileo Galilei, as quoted in How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Born February 15,1564, in Pisa, Duchy of Florence, Tuscany, Italy,  Galileo Galilei is remembered as the Father of observational astronomy, modern physics, the scientific method, and modern science. The Indigo Girls even called him “the King of Insight,” which makes sense given the aforementioned definition of insight. Galileo was able to see things others had not seen thanks to advancements in telescope technology and also because he was willing to pay attention. He was open to new information and to how that information supported or did not support his understanding of what had previously been observed by himself and others.

Galileo was an astronomer, a physicists, an engineer, and a polymath who studied all aspects of physical science and invented the thermoscope and a variety of military compasses. He used the telescope to track and identify the moons of Jupiter; the phases of Venus (which are similar to moon phases); and the rings of Saturn. He also analyzed lunar craters and sunspots and supported Copernican heliocentrism (the idea that the Earth rotated on it’s axis and also rotated around the Sun). In fact, his observations became the basis of his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) – which was banned in Italy for a while and resulted in Galileo being convicted of heresy by the Catholic Church.

Despite the fact that the ban extended to the publication of his future books, Galileo wrote Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Relating to Two New Sciences while he was under house arrest. This latter work, which was basically a summation of thirty years worth of physics, could not find a publisher in France, Germany, or Poland. It was ultimately published in Leiden, South Holland and featured the same characters who were conversing in his Dialogue. There was one notable change in the characters, however, the “simple-minded” one that had previously been viewed as a caricature of the pope was not as foolish or stubborn. When the text made its way to Roman bookstores, it quickly sold out.

“But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations.”

*

– quoted from the 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (mother of Cosimo II de ‘Medici) by Galileo Galilei

Susan B. Anthony, who was born February 15, 1820, in Adams, Massachusetts, was also considered quite controversial by the establishment of her time. Like Galileo Galilei, she was an observer. Her primary observations, however, were related to the social interactions of humans. She was a suffragist as well as an abolitionist and is remembered for her great friendship and collaborations with Elizabeth Cady Stanton. The two women had different backgrounds made different life choices, but they were firmly united in the quest for equal rights.

The second-oldest of seven, Susan B. Anthony was born into a liberal Quaker household despite the fact that her mother (Lucy Read Anthony) was Methodist and her father (Daniel Anthony) was shunned (for marrying outside his religion) and disowned (for allowing dancing in his home). The Anthony children were taught Quaker values, as well as the importance of self-sufficiency and social responsibility. At least three of her siblings were activists. Ms. Anthony herself, attended a Quaker boarding school in Philadelphia until 1837 when the Anthony’s, like so many, faced financial ruin and depression. She left school for a bit, but ultimately became a teacher at a different Quaker boarding school. By this time, the family had moved to New York and eventually joined what would become the Congregational Friends, and offshoot of the Quakers.

The Congregational Friends were active social reformers and many attended services at First Unitarian Church of Rochester, which was also socially active. Around the late 1840’s, the Anthony farm in Rochester had become a favorite place for activists to come together. One of those activists was Frederick Douglass, with whom both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony would develop a friendship.

“I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand.”

*

– quoted from the end of Susan B. Anthony’s “Power of the Ballot” speech (probably on July 12, 1871) as printed in “Chapter XXIII: First Trip to the Pacific Coast (1871)” from The Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony (Complete Illustrated Edition – Volumes 1&2): The Only Authorized Biography containing Letters, Memoirs and Vignettes of the life of the World Renowned Suffragist, Abolitionist and Author and Friend of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Ida Husted Harper

In 1846, Susan B. Anthony accepted a position as headmistress of the girls’ department at Canajoharie Academy in Canajoharie, Montgomery County, New York. A year or two later, she was offered the position of superintendent or director of the women’s department. She was in Canajoharie, almost 173 miles away from her family, during the Seneca Falls Convention (July 19-20, 1948) and the Rochester Women’s Rights Convention of 1848 (on August 2nd), but at some point she was aware that her parents and her sister (Mary Stafford Anthony) had (at least) attended the latter.

The Seneca Falls Convention was the first women’s rights convention organized by women (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Coffin Mott, and Martha Coffin Wright) and it produced the Declaration of Sentiments. One hundred of the approximately 300 attendees to the conference signed the declaration, which Elizabeth Cady Stanton, with assistance from Mary Ann M’Clintock, had modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Mrs. Cady Stanton (and her sister, Harriet Cady Eaton), Mrs. M’Clintock (plus her daughters Elizabeth W. and Mary M’Clintock and her half-sister, Margaret Pryor), Mrs. Mott, and and Mrs. Wright were among the 68 female signers; Frederick Douglass, Thomas M’Clintock, and James Mott were among the the 32 male signers.

Several online sources indicate that the three Anthony’s signed the declaration; however, they are not listed by the National Parks Service (NPS) and their names do not appear on the original document preserved by NPS. According to a media report included in The History of Women Suffrage, edited by Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper (published in 1902), no attendees at the National-American Convention of 1898 (February 13th – 19th, in Washington, D. C.) attended the Seneca Falls Convention. However, the report indicated that Mary W. Anthony stated that she had attended the Rochester convention and signed the declaration at that time.

Between her unhappy experiences as a student and the observations she made as a teacher, Susan B. Anthony found herself more and more disenchanted with the disenfranchisement of women and enslaved people. She didn’t have the same agenda as her parents and siblings, but she wanted to be paid the same as her male counterparts – for doing the same work. When she left the Canajoharie Academy around 1849/1850, she went home and found herself feeling more and more at home with the radical ideas around her. She even started to dress less and less like a traditional Quaker woman and more and more like a radical feminist. She even wore started wearing the pantaloons associated with the publisher and editor Amelia Jenks Bloomer. In fact, it was the erudite and entre Mrs. Bloomer that introduced Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1851.

“It is often said, by those who know Miss Anthony best, that she has been my good angel, always pushing and goading me to work, and that but for her pertinacity I should never have accomplished the little I have. On the other hand it has been said that I forged the thunderbolts and she fired them. Perhaps all this is, in a measure, true.”

*

– quoted from “X. Susan B. Anthony” in Eighty Years and More (1815 – 1897): Reminiscences of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a writer; Susan B. Anthony was an organizer; and their friendship was the ultimate collaboration. By the time the dynamic duo met, Mrs. Cady Stanton was a proud wife and mother of four and would eventually be the mother of seven. Contrary to the social norms of the time, she believed women should control a couple’s sexual relationships and that a woman should absolutely have domain over her body when it came to childbearing. She was equally as bold about declaring her motherhood (when others were more demure silent) and would raise a red or white flag in front of her house depending on the sex of her newborn child. Of course, her “voluntary motherhood” required a compromise when it came to social reform and that compromise required her to be at home when her husband was away. Henry Brewster Stanton was a lawyer and a politician, who was traveling ten months out of the year in the 1850’s. So, Elizabeth Cady Stanton felt she was “a caged lioness.” Her partnership with Ms. Anthony made the compromise less restrictive.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote; Susan B. Anthony organized and spoke.

This relationship, too, required compromise – and not only because the ladies had different personalities and working styles. Susan B. Anthony stopped wearing bloomers so people would listen to her rather than get distracted by her clothes. And the whole Stanton family made room for “Miss Anthony.”

When the Stanton family moved to New York City in 1861, the women had established a finely tuned system. Sometimes they would write together, sometimes Ms. Anthony would take care of the kids while Mrs. Cady Stanton wrote – but both methods required the pair to be in the same place. So, whenever the Stanton’s moved, the set up a room for Susan B. Anthony and she became part of the family.

“Eventually Anthony supplanted Henry in Elizabeth’s affections. Both Henry and Susan moved in and out of her life and her household, but overall, Stanton probably spent more hours and days with Anthony than any other adult.”

*

– quoted from the “Methodological Note: Stanton in Psychological Perspective” section of In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton by Elisabeth Griffith

The collaboration between Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was not restricted to speeches. They co-founded the New York Women’s State Temperance Society – after Anthony was prevented from speaking at a temperance conference because she was female – and the Women’s Loyal National League in 1863. The league, which used different iterations of the name, was specifically formed to lobby for the abolition of slavery. At one time they collected almost 40,000 signatures in support of abolition, which was the largest petition drive in United States history at that time. They also initiated the American Equal Rights Association (1866) and founded the National Woman Suffrage Association (1869).

On January 8, 1868, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton started publishing the weekly paper The Revolution. The paper’s motto was “Men, their rights and nothing more; Women, their rights and nothing less.” In addition to women’s rights and the suffrage movement, the paper covered general politics, the labor movement, and finance. Ms. Anthony ran the business end of things. Mrs. Cady Stanton co-edited the newspaper with the abolitionist minister Parker Pillsbury. The initially received funding from the transportation entrepreneur George Francis Train – who shared their views on women’s rights, but not on abolition – but eventually transferred control of the paper to the wealthy writer and activist Laura Curtis Bullard, who toned “the revolution” down a bit.

The ladies that started it, however, did not tone down at all.

“Miss [Anna] Shaw said: ‘On Sunday, about two hours before she became unconscious, I talked with Miss Anthony and she said: “To think I have had more than sixty years of hard struggle for a little liberty, and then to die without it seems so cruel!”’

*

“I replied: ‘Your legacy will be freedom for all womankind after you are gone. your splendid struggle has changed life for women everywhere.'”

*

– quoted from the obituary “Susan B. Anthony” in the Union Labor Advocate (Vol. VII. May, 1906, No. 9)

Anna Shaw was correct: Susan B. Anthony’s legacy includes the 19th amendment to the United States constitution, which was ratified fourteen years after the Miss Anthony’s death. That legacy also includes United States v. Susan B. Anthony, a very public and very publicized 1873 criminal trial that changed the fight and helped change laws that had nothing to do with the suffrage movement.

In 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested, indicted, “tried,” and convicted after she and fourteen other women attempted to vote in Rochester, New York. The judge over the circuit court was the newly appointed Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) Associate Justice Ward Hunt. The election official, a Mr. Beverly W. Jones, testified that when he said he wasn’t sure if he could register her, she asked him if he was “acquainted with the 14th amendment.” He also testified that when said that he was, and she asked if he would consider her a citizen, the Supervisor of Elections said there was no getting around her argument. After establishing that “the defendant was, on the 5th of November, 1872, a woman,” the judge instructed the all male jury – all male because women were prohibited from serving on juries – to find the defendant guilty without discussion or deliberation, which they did. Ms. Anthony was instructed to pay a fine, of $100 plus court cases, which she did not.

Because the judge refused to jail her (for refusing to pay the fine), she was unable to take the case to the Supreme Court. The other women, who also registered and voted in that election, were arrested, but never tried. On the other hand, the election inspectors who allowed them to vote were arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed (for not paying their fines). President Ulysses S. Grant eventually pardoned the inspectors and all of the attention from the trials pushed suffrage to the front of the women’s rights movement. Justice Hunt’s controversial actions during Susan B. Anthony’s trial resulted in years of legal debate and, in Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), or Sparf and Hansen v. United States, the SCOTUS decision that a jury must apply the law based on the facts of the case; the court  may not direct the jury to return a guilty verdict; a jury may convict a defendant of a lesser crime if that is part of the case (in some cases); and that juries can – but do not have the explicit right to – dispute the law.

Over the years, Susan B. Anthony gave hundreds and hundreds of speeches. In addition to giving up the “bloomers” she considered more sensible and reasonable, she was subjected to yelling mobs that would throw rotten eggs and sometimes even furniture at her. People would brandish guns and knives and, of course (I say sarcastically) she had to continuously contend with questions about why she wasn’t married. Her answers to the questions changed depending on her mood, or perhaps, who was asking the question. My personal favorite answer was when she said that she had never wanted to spend the majority of her life as “a housekeeper and a drudge [which she would have been had she married someone poor]” and neither had she ever wanted to be “a pet and a doll [which she would have have been had she married someone rich].” But, all that being said, she believed in a woman’s right to choose… whether she got married or not.

“Marriage, to women as to men, must be a luxury, not a necessity; an incident of life, not all of it. And the only possible way to accomplish this great change is to accord to women equal power in the making, shaping and controlling of the circumstances of life.”

*

– quoted from the speech “Social Purity” by Susan B. Anthony

As I mentioned over the last two weeks, some people celebrate the Lunar New Year for a handful of days and then go back to their regular routines. For some, however, there’s the Spring Festival, a 15-day celebration that culminates with the Lantern Festival. This year, the Lantern Festival occurred on February 15th, and one of the customs turns the event into something similar to modern-day Valentine’s Day. Traditionally, women would write their contact information on oranges and then toss the oranges in the river where men would scoop them up. Then, the men would eat the oranges. A sweet orange meant the couple could potential have a good relationship, but if a bitter orange meant the match was best avoided.

Of course, the oranges in the river makes for a pretty sight but that’s not the main focus of the Lantern Festival – nor is it the most spectacular. In fact, anyone observing areas celebrating the Lantern Festival would primarily notice cities, towns, and villages adorned in red lanterns and lit up… almost like everything is on fire.

There are several different legends associated with the Lantern Festival. There is a story about the Emperor Ming of the Eastern Han Dynasty wanting every person in every class to honor the Buddha as the monks would on the fifteenth day of the year. According to another story, Dongfang Shuo (a  scholar and court jester) came upon a homesick maiden from the place. To console her and lift her out of her despair, he told the young lady that he would reunite her with her family. Then he dressed up like a fortune teller and told everyone who came to his stall that they must beg the “red fairy” for mercy on the thirteenth day of the new year or else everything would burn down in a couple of days. When the maiden, Yuan Xiao, appeared all dressed in red, people flocked to her and all that she could think to do was say she would take a message to the emperor. Of course, Dongfang had already “tricked” the emperor and convinced him to tell Yuan Xiao to make her sweet-rice dumplings called tangyuan, because they were the favorite dessert of the God of Fire.

The whole town, and people from surrounding towns, came together to make the dumplings as a tribute to the God of Fire. As word spread, more people came – including Yuan Xiao’s family. And this is why Dongfang Shuo’s plan was so clever: In Chinese, the dumplings are 湯圓 or 汤圆 (pinyin: tāngyuán), which sounds like 團圓 or 团圆 (pinyin: tuányuán), which means “union.” While the round dumplings are enjoyed at a variety of events and festivals throughout the year, they are a staple during the Lantern Festival, which is actually 元宵節 or 元宵节 (pinyin: Yuánxiāo jié) – Yuan Xiao’s Festival.

“‘When you see it, it’ll affect you profoundly…'”

*

– Wang De quoted in the Feb. 19, 2019, The Strait Times article entitled “Blacksmiths keep alive the flame of China’s molten steel ‘fireworks'”

There are more variations on this them, but the legend with which I am most familiar, and the one I share in the practice, is the story of the Jade Emperor and his favorite bird, a crane. This crane was beautiful and unlike any other bird or species. In some stories, the ruler of heaven and earth decided to treat people with a glimpse of the exotic bird. In other versions of the story, the crane got discombobulated and flew close to the earth. Either way, what happened next is why we can’t have nice things: Someone shot the exotic bird. The Jade Emperor was furious and decided to send down fire breathing dragons to destroy the towns and villages. The Jade Emperor’s daughter warned the townsfolk and someone suggested that if they lit lanterns, started bonfires, and set off fireworks, the dragons – who are not that smart in these stories – would think everything was already on fire. The trick worked… on the dragons. The Jade Emperor was not tricked, but his anger had passed and he decided to offer a little compassion to the people on Earth.

To this day, people carry on the tradition of lighting up the skies. Traditional, lanterns are paper, wooden, or jade. Some people will spend months designing and creating delicate lanterns that they will enter into competitions. Other people will make simple lanterns or purchase fancy store-bought lanterns. In addition to the plethora of basic red lanterns, there will also be animal-shaped lanterns – the most popular of which are in the shape of the animal of the year. Many of the lanterns will have riddles at the bottom – which adds to the fun, because if you know the answer to the riddle you can go find it’s owner and they will give you tangyuan (those sweet dumplings that sound like “union”) as a reward.

In addition to the lanterns, there are bonfires, fireworks, and a 300-plus years old tradition called Da Shuhua.

Da Shuhua is one of the English spellings for 打树花 (dǎshùhuā in pinyin), which is a 300-500 years old tradition handed down through families of blacksmiths in China´s northern Hebei province. It is sometimes referred to as the poor man’s fireworks, because it is produced from scrap metal that people in the remote village of Nuanquan give to the local blacksmiths. Dressed in straw hats, sheepskin jackets, and protective eyewear, the blacksmiths and their assistants melt down the scraps and then the blacksmiths throw the molten liquid up against a cold stone wall. When the liquid metal – which can reach up to 2,900 degrees Fahrenheit (1,600 degrees Celsius) – hits the cold wall, sparks fly.

The spectacular display looks like a blossoming tree and so the name of the art form translates into English as “beating tree flowers.” Although there are a few other places in China where this art form is showcased, it is traditional to Nuanquan and there is a square in the village (“Tree Flower Square”), which was specifically built to hold tourists who travel to the village to see the display. In addition to three days of performances at the end of the Spring Festival, the tradition is also performed during the Dragon Boat Festival. Also called Double Fifth Festival, this second event takes place on the fifth day of the fifth month of the Lunar New Year (June 3 of this year). Although UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) designated Da Shuhua as a prime example of China and Hebei province’s intangible cultural heritage, the tradition may be dying out. In 2019, there were only four blacksmiths trained in the art form and the youngest was 50 years old. Wang De, one of the four, had trained his youngest son; however, like so many of the younger generations, his son had moved to the big city and started working in a different industry. His concerns, and hopes, for his legacy are not unlike those of Galileo Galilee and Susan B. Anthony.

“‘It’s extremely dangerous and it doesn’t make much money,’ said Wang, who also farms corn to supplement his blacksmith’s income.

*

[…] Still, Wang De is hopeful he will return to keep the flame alive.

*

‘When we no longer can pull this off, people can learn from him. I have this confidence that (Da Shuhua) will be passed on.'”

*

– quoted from the Feb. 19, 2019, The Strait Times article entitled “Blacksmiths keep alive the flame of China’s molten steel ‘fireworks'”

Tuesday’s playlist is available on YouTube and Spotify. [Look for “Lantern Festival 2022”]

*RIDDLE NOTE: The riddles at the bottom (or sometimes underneath) the lanterns, are literally called “riddles written on lanterns,” but are sometimes referred to as “tiger riddles,” because solving them (in Chinese) is akin to wrestling a tiger. They often have three parts: the riddle, a hint or suggestion (which is that the answer is in the post), and the answer. In this case, I took a page from Dongfang Shuo’s book and only gave you part of an English riddle so that instead of having one definite answer, there are three possible answers. Highlight the space between the hashtags for the answers.

### The moon (which is the original answer), a bit of history you didn’t know, and a legend from a culture with which you are unfamiliar. Let me know if you got the answer(s)!  ###