Issue 2: Echo


This is Emmeline Pankhurst. She and her daughters organized the WSPU in the early 20th century in England. They advocated violent acts as protests in order to get the vote for women. They were also the first group known to use the hunger strike. 

I want to share with you the following passage from a speech she made in 1913:

To-day, women are working very hard for it [the vote]. And there is no doubt whatever that very, very soon the fight will be over, and victory will be won. Even a Liberal Government will be forced to give votes to women. Gentlemen with Liberal principles have talked about those principles for a very long time, but it is only just lately that women have realised that so far as they are concerned, it began in talk and ended in talk, and that there was absolutely no intention of performance. To-day, we have taken off the mask, and we have made these gentlemen realise that, whether they like it or not, they will have to yield. People ask us, "Why force it on just now? Why give all this trouble to the Liberals, with their great and splendid programme of reform?" Well, we say, after all, they are just the people to whom we ought to give trouble, and who, if they are sincere, ought to be very glad that we are giving them trouble, and forcing them to put their great principles into practice.

Sound familiar to anyone? How about all the hoorahs that Obama and the democrats are about to "change" things? I'm still quite pessimistic about what Obama will actually change. As far as I'm concerned his promises "began in talk and ended in talk, and there was absolutely no intention of performance." I wanted to remind all of you that he did promise to bulk up the military...he is not the person who will release us from war in the Middle East as everyone assumed. He is not the person who will help the poor and destitute of this country...he seems only concerned with the "middle class." He will not solve any environmental problems. I could go on and on...but I'll get to my  point:

Now is the time to "give trouble" to the "liberals." (I guess "liberal" is defined by most people as anyone but an Evangelical Christian). We need to continue protests for what we as an American people want. This is not the time to just sit back because our savior, Obama, will enter the Oval Office on Tuesday. We need to, echoing Mrs. Pankhurst, force "them to put their great principles into practice."


Anonymous said...


You say she "advocated violent acts as protests in order to get the vote for women." Do you me non-violent? I assume that's what you mean since you go on to state that they used hunger strikes, which are non-violent. If you do mean violent, then she's no different than a terrorist.


Ann Marie said...

Yes, she was violent...I don't agree with her violence, but I, of course, agree with her cause.

Ann Marie said...

I want to add, that we should be careful with the word "terrorist"...they never hurt anyone...they were desparate women. We should, instead, look at what makes people so desparate. I, myself, am a pacifist, and wish they didn't feel they had to resort to violence...but they did, and I'm not excusing it. Just trying to understand.