This is a Sojourner Truth Hype Post

I was very excited to see that I would get to publish a blog post the week we are reading Sojourner Truth--she's such a legend and her speech is truly enjoyable to read/listen to. I'll be honest, I generally find most historical speeches to be a little boring, but with Sojourner I don't have that problem.

That being said, I want to first address the elephant in the room: the "Ain't I A Woman?" speech that Truth is most famous for is not accurately represented; it's likely she never even said that phrase in her original speech. The speech that most are more familiar with comes from a white woman named Frances Gage, who transcribed her speech 12 years after it was originally spoken and consists of multiple inaccuracies, such as a stereotypical southern black woman accent (Truth came from the North) and false statements like claiming that Truth gave birth to 13 children. Gage felt that she did nothing wrong by heavily editing the speech, one source saying, "she felt justified and believed her version stronger and more palatable to the American public than Sojourner's original version" (https://www.thesojournertruthproject.com/).

This is an important note to make that I think speaks volumes about the issue of "white saviorism." Often times progression is related to white liberals taking a stand on the front lines, fighting for the rights of marginalized people; this works to discredit and erase the efforts and desires of marginalized people instead. Gage's belief that she made Sojourner's speech more effective by amplifying stereotypes and inserting entire phrases is rooted in this idea that white people know better and thus need to help the "poor" others. White chivalry is dangerous, and I'm glad that this info is becoming more common when Sojourner is taught. A better version of the speech comes from a friend of Sojourner's, Marcus Robinson, who was present for it. This is a good website that includes both versions and discusses some differences between them: https://sojournertruthmemorial.org/sojourner-truth/her-words/. 

Frederick Douglass: The Lion of Anacostia

 On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass gave a famous speech that rallied many to believe in the end of slavery. This speech is titled "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" and is one of the most memorable speeches for its time. 

Frederick Douglass, born Frederick Bailey, was born into slavery, but escaped from it in 1838. After slavery, he spent time working on books, reading and writing speeches. As an abolitionist, Frederick Douglass wanted to persuade people to join the cause, and what better way to spread the word about abolitionism than to persuade an audience with an exemplary speech. Rhetoric was indeed the best friend of Douglass. Below is a short clip of history about Frederick Douglass that will help you understand his background.

 

Frederick Douglass' Incredible Legacy

"What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" is a beautifully crafted speech that not only recognizes the history of the nation, but also calls out the mistakes and tragedies that befall the nation. At the time, Douglass was working as an abolitionist, and he wanted to make it known how freedom did not ring through the entirety of America. Douglass wrote "I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine." This quote shows the power of Douglass' words. Frederick Douglass did not want to diminish the celebration of the country's freedom, but he did want to make a point that not all in the United States were free, so the celebration was not shared. 

To gain believers in abolitionism, Douglass used his power of rhetoric to create a persuasive speech that made people realize freedom was not shared in slavery. Douglass begins the speech with asking the question of what to the salve is the fourth of July? He follows the question with instances of slavery torment and how the day of celebration is not shared among the enslaved people. Douglass continues with his speech by answering his own question by stating:

"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages."

With Douglass showing how cruel and corrupt slavery is, while also denouncing the very act of it, he is using rhetoric to persuade his audience to follow the abolitionist movement . Douglass' persuasion was a success eventually, for he did get to see the official end of slavery in 1865. Douglass also worked closely with Elizabeth Cady Stanton for the rights of women and colored people. Overall, Frederick Douglass was a man of rhetorical talent. Below is an Epic Rap Battle of History that has Frederick Douglass and Thomas Jefferson compete against each other. It helps show just how awesome Frederick Douglass was.

Frederick Douglass vs. Thomas Jefferson: Epic Rap Battle of History

** Please be aware of profane language**

Edgeworth and the Satirical Commentary on Gender Inequality

 

            Maria Edgeworth was an Anglo-Irish writer of children's stories and novels of Irish life. She was an early pioneer for women's rhetoric and feminist rhetoric before the word "feminism" was ever used. She is often compared to Jane Austen, who was also writing around the same time as Edgeworth. Her work "An Essay on the Noble Science of Self-Justification" is one of her most noteworthy essays, a satire commentary on gender roles and social codes of the late Enlightenment period. 

          Edgeworth's "An Essay on the Noble Science of Self-Justification" can be read from different levels. On the surface, it reads as a whimsical instruction guide on how to undermine "the common enemy, a husband" but may also be used on "fathers, brothers, and female friends." However, once revealed to be a satire, it becomes a commentary on women's treatment in society, men's approach to rhetoric, and the relation of power at the time. 

            Some believe that Edgeworth's essay is a parody, a work making fun of men's views on women's behavior as obedient and quiet wives. However, it is a better classification of being satire because it makes social commentary not only for the purpose of entertainment but for education as well. She satirizes how the view of women of this time period is so low, that this strategy works because it does not rely on reason or logic. 

"Timid brides, you have, probably, hitherto been addressed as angels. Prepare for the time when you shall again become mortal. Take the alarm at the first approach of blame; at the first hint of a discovery that you are any thing less than infallible: – contradict, debate, justify, recriminate, rage, weep, swoon, do any thing but yield to conviction."

            Women are considered emotional and irrational creatures, so the idea that their approach to turning the tables on their husbands relies on gaslighting, red herring, and tu quoque logical fallacies, makes perfect sense. She writes how women also have the power to use rhetoric to manipulate others around them. It is interesting to read how she recommends women to engage their husbands when they are accused of doing something wrong or being "anything less than infallible."

She recommends that one:

"study the weak part of the character of your enemy – your husband I mean: if he be a man of high spirit, jealous of command, and impatient of control, one who decides for himself, and is little troubled with the insanity of minding what the world says of him, you must proceed with extreme circumspection... harass him with perpetual petty skirmishes: in these, though you gain little at a time, you will gradually weary the patience, and break the spirit of your opponent. "

She also says:

"your husband should merely presume to advert to your manners, to some slight personal habit which might be made more agreeable to him; prove, in the first place, that it is his fault that it is not agreeable to him; ask which is most to blame, "she who ceases to please, or he who ceases to be pleased"

            Her use of rhetoric to manipulate the so called enemy satirizes how men use rhetoric in the Enlightenment. During this time, men are using a more scientific approach to rhetoric, breaking it down from a subjective art to an objective science, easier to study and easier to produce. In response, she breaks down how women should use rhetoric to make their husbands question themselves and their opinions, as well as avoid accusations of blame and imperfection. She writes to women as if this essay is a step by step guide to use a husband's weakness against him for her benefit. She is also satirizing how the Belletristic school's emphasis on taste as well as the elocutionists who taught voice as a key part of rhetoric.

            Before feminism was coined as a movement, Edgeworth was a rhetorician advocating for women's rights and challenging traditional gender roles, challenging the notion that women should be quiet, modest, and obedient to her husband and the male figures in her life. She takes rhetoric and appropriates the manipulative nature of rhetoric for her own use and agenda. 

To read Edgeworth's essay, select here. 

Meme made by me :)

                      

Life Imitates Art: The Relationship Between Art and Rhetoric in the Renaissance

 

Although rhetoric has been in and out of the good graces of the public throughout history, it was undoubtedly a sizable component of thought during the Renaissance. The rise of humanism most certainly assisted with the popularity or rhetoric, as it primarily dealt with the study of liberal arts and included rhetoric as part of their studies. While much of the studies of the Italian Humanists focused on classical texts from ancient Greece and Rome, the art of rhetoric remained applicable to the inner workings of the Renaissance.

In modern times, one of the ideas generally associated with the Renaissance is their art and paintings. With art's position of importance within the Renaissance, it is no surprise that it had its own association with rhetoric. The status of rhetoric as it was portrayed in art seems to echo the sentiment that life imitates art. 

A woman poses in front of a painting in a museum, demonstrating the resemblance between herself and the painting.

Art during the Renaissance was used as a sort of mirror that instructed viewers how they ought to act. Artists would portray acts of virtue and nobility within paintings and other art forms, and this inclusion was thought to encourage the audience to act in similar a similar fashion. 

Paintings may have been a more covert method of persuading an audience compared to other forms of rhetoric we have read about, but it is clear that art still contained rhetorical messaging. Humanists during the Renaissance encouraged for our actions in life to imitate art, proving that this common saying might have merit. 

This idea can still be seen in modern society, even if it has manifested in some different ways. One humorous example of modern life imitating art can be demonstrated by the "distracted boyfriend" meme and its resemblance to a panting. 

 

Perhaps this may be considered a case of art imitating art, but the usage of this meme indicates many things about life in modern society. Additionally, this meme poses a suggestion on the ways that we ought or ought not to behave in our lives, much like the rhetoric in the art of the Renaissance. Rhetorical appeals may not be as blatantly posed in art as they can be in oration, but art most certainly offers them. These messages prevail throughout history, whether hidden in a painting from the European Renaissance era or a twenty-first century meme.

The History and Complicated Rhetoric of the Sentiment of “Women Supporting Women”

 If you spend any time with a third wave feminist, you will probably hear or see the phrase “girls supporting girls” (or “women supporting women”) at some point. This statement has become a pillar of the third wave, such that it’s become more of a platitude than a call for action as it was originally intended. It’s written in Instagram comments, on “feminist” merchandise” (quotes because I'm skeptical of any commercialized feminism), and used in casual conversation when women discuss other women. In case you doubt the prevalence of this phrase, I’ve included a screenshot from redbubble’s website; under the “stickers” category, I’ve searched “girls supporting girls” and as you can see highlighted in yellow, there are over 1,000 results! Apparently, a lot of women just really want to uplift each other! I’d argue that in theory, and usually in practice, this is a great thing—though I would also argue that sometimes the execution of this idea is misguided. However, what is of importance for this post is that this rhetoric isn’t new—the sentiment can be traced all the way back to 14^th century—and the comparisons between proto-feminist and modern feminist thought reveal some important truths about the rhetoric surrounding social movements. 

   Before we talk about the history of feminist rhetoric, however, we should ask: why exactly do women need to support one another? That’s not really a question I want to answer in full right now because I don’t think it really adds to this course’s focus; however, I think it is important to at least have some context in order to explain the differences and similarities between de Pizan’s and today’s rhetorics. In most places, women are a marginalized people, and as such, one of the most powerful forms of strength they can find individually is by coming together as a group. This is a common theme among marginalized peoples—for example, we really never say “the straight community” but we do say “the LGBTQ+ community.” When you already have a large amount of influence within society, there isn’t as much of a need to single out yourself and the people like you in order to find power. Women should, then, support each other to ensure the liberation of all women, for, as solo individuals, the same social power cannot be found. Of course, there is more nuance for each specific group of people, but the concept of coming together to find strength when society seeks to strip it away from you answers the question surrounding the need for women to support each other well enough for the purposes of this discussion.* Now, onto rhetoric.

   After reading the excerpt from Christine de Pizan’s work for class, particularly the section entitled “How it is unbecoming for women to defame each other or speak evil,” it occurred to me that women, at least some who are progressive, have felt and encouraged some form of sisterhood among women for at least hundreds of years. De Pizan wrote that “ladies and women of the court ought to love and support each other like sisters. They ought not to quarrel with one another in the ladies’ apartments, nor betray each other behind their backs like fishwives, for such things are extremely unbecoming at the court of a Princess, and they ought not to be allowed,” (The Treasure of the City of Ladies). De Pizan insists that women love and support one another—which very closely mirrors the third wave notion of “girls supporting girls.” Despite three waves of feminism since de Pizan’s time on earth, American feminism is still trying to normalize the same social bonds she wrote about.

   There are differences between the old and new philosophies, however; for many feminists, the motivation behind “women supporting women” diverges from de Pizan's motivation. If the quote ended after “like sisters,” we might be able to say that de Pizan could fit right alongside the third wave feminists. However, she continues, giving more detail for the reasoning behind her stance—this is where we can see these differences. She writes that women should emulate or seek to behave as princesses, not fishwives. Hmmm. She then attributes very different qualities to these two types of women. First, she writes earlier in the book that princesses are “mild” and “pure.” The lower-class woman, however, is quarrelsome and not to be trusted because she is apt to betray others.

   Why draw this line between them? The main difference between a princess and a fishwife is social standing. We all know what a princess is—a royal and rich woman, among other things. A fishwife, on the other hand, sells fish, so she is probably not rich, and she is certainly not royal. The morality and worth, then, of these women are determined by their standing within society, not their personhood. This is the main difference between the implications of de Pizan’s rhetoric and the goal of the feminist rhetoric of today. In modern words, de Pizan’s writings are not intersectional. Today’s intersectional feminists, on the other hand, seek to liberate all women when they use the phrase “girls supporting girls.” They, especially younger women, seek to support and find community with other women regardless of background by invoking this phrase.

   However, not all feminists are on the same page—liberal, middle class, white feminists, often dubbed simply “white feminists,” are still in de Pizan’s mindset when they appeal to sisterhood. They seek to liberate the women who look like them, and they twist the meaning of third wave feminism to do so. A specific example of this can be found in the reaction to the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett’s supreme court nomination. Many leftist activists were against this choice—she has a history of regressive views, so if she were to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, important rulings such as Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Many centrist and liberal women were upset by this reaction, claiming that women need to “uplift each other” no matter what. This rhetoric essentially co-opted the phrase “women supporting women,” because the need for women to support each other doesn’t mean blindly extending approval to every woman. Rather, it means all women need to come together and unify against oppression, no matter their race, sexuality, occupation, etc.. When a woman participates in extending oppression, as in Barrett’s case, her agenda should no longer be supported—it doesn’t matter that she’s a woman, she still seeks to do harm, rather than good according to feminist thought.

   So, that brings us to the problem with the phrase “girls supporting girls”: it is entirely too vague to be the motto of the movement. It is incredibly easy to bend the meaning of the message to support an agenda it was never meant to support. Conservative women are able to call feminists hypocritical because they can purposefully misunderstand the phrase. Their argument becomes, “well, if you’re not supporting me, a woman, how can you say your support all women? You feminists are oppressive after all!” Such rhetoric weakens the feminist movement by persuading centrists, who otherwise might be interested in feminist thought, to believe that feminists are indeed the angry, bra-burning women the second wave warned them about (side note, why do people hate that image? Seems badass to me—but I digress.) It’s also very easy to do the bare minimum and still say you’re living up to the expectations set by feminism if this is the phrase by which you judge your own activism. Did you compliment a woman today? Yes? Wow, you must be a feminist queen! “Girls supporting girls” as the cornerstone of third wave philosophy allows feminists to avoid deeper thought and meaningful, community-driven action. Thus this motto is perhaps doing more harm than good as one of the main ways feminism is being marketed to the masses.

  That’s not to say the thought behind the phrase is bad—it’s a good notion for women to support one another, even if the action is as small as complimenting one another. Sisterhood is important for the movement’s future. However, not everyone reads into subjects before forming opinions about them—people read the headline or watch the first few seconds of a video and continue with their day. This means that people outside of social movements such as feminism can easily misunderstand what the movement is about, especially if the rhetoric surrounding the activism is unclear. For this reason, a movement’s rhetoric needs to portray the goals of the movement accurately and specifically. For example, many of the Black Lives Matter protests which happened this summer (and continue to happen even now) use(d) the phrase “no justice, no peace.” This is clear and specific—if there is no justice for those who have been harmed, there will never be peace within society. If feminists want to continue to make political progress, they need to develop the rhetoric which is seen by the masses to a similar state of specificity. Otherwise, women with views like Christine de Pizan, such as Barrett sympathizers, can continue to co-opt the movement. It’s not enough to say “women should love and support one another”; there are too many potential meanings to be had in this phrase. If you are Christine de Pizan or a “white feminist,” this means women in the upper class should stick together to behave in a way which is acceptable to the patriarchy, whereas, to intersectional feminists, this sentiment means unifying to end oppression. These are two completely different goals, so it is important for modern feminists to create a new face for our activism if we are to continue to progress an intersectional feminist agenda.

*I want to quickly point out that there is a history of division between Black feminists and White feminists in this ideology. White feminists, as people with privilege in regard to their race, have not done a good job of including Black women in the movement for women’s rights at any point within the feminist struggle. This has caused many Black women to feel alienated from the “sisterhood” White women champion as being one of feminism’s greatest goals. This is one of the pitfalls of the vague phrase “girls supporting girls” I was referring to when I said the execution isn’t always beneficial. Moving forward, White women need to do better to include Black women, as well as all women of color, in feminist circles, where White women still hold quite a bit of power despite the emphasis on intersectionality and equality in the modern movement.