Category Archives: world

granny goes to war

Are you all following Jane Stillwater’s blog? Ragin’ granny who eats peanut butter sandwiches for a year so she can afford a plane ticket to Baghdad. And she arrived a few days ago and she’s embedded with some troops and now is eating like a queen. She’s also making friends with many of the soldiers, listening to their stories. From yesterday’s post:

These men are my boys. Hurt them and you have to go through me. Hear that, George Bush? These men aren’t just action figure toys for you to play with. These are real, living human beings. Sincere. Serious about doing their jobs — and doing them well. They deserve better than the blunders of GWB. They deserve respect. They’ve got mine.

It reminds me of the conversation I had with a friend at Meeting today. I think this might be the Friend who used to be the head of the CDC. If not, at least he’s someone who has some connections. He asked me about my prosthetic leg, he told me about overseeing Walter Reed Medical Center in the post WWII years and how crappily veterans are being treated in this current war. We commiserated at the pointlessness of it all. The bodies being maimed in a war we shouldn’t be fighting, at the instigation of a president who shouldn’t have been elected. The horror….

In any honest cause


The best line from this article about Quakers’ role in the abolition of slavery: “In any honest cause there is no agitator like a Quaker.”

Full article with pictures.

Keeping it Under their Hats
By Stephen Tomkins

Quakers started the British campaign against the slave trade and invented modern campaigning, championing the petition and the consumer boycott, and mastering the use of images and logos. Not that they like to shout about it.

It is perhaps the defining image of the battle to end the slave trade. Not a picture of a shackled slave, or some gruesome punishment, but a cross-section of a ship. It is a ship packed so full that the mind boggles at the sheer logistics of inhumanity.

The use of the engraving of the Liverpool slave ship, the Brookes, is the perfect example of how Quaker mastery of PR kick-started the movement that toppled the slave trade.

“In any honest cause there is no agitator like a Quaker,” said the abolitionist George Stephen. But today their contribution has largely been forgotten.

Anyone in full possession of the facts would agree, it is time for that to be put right; few, if any, deserve greater credit for the defeat of slavery and the slave trade than them.

The campaign to abolish the slave trade was an overwhelmingly religious affair. The importance of evangelical Anglicans, like William Wilberforce and John Newton, is well known.

But Quakers were the pioneers of the movement, its brains, and much of the soul too. The more you delve into the story, the more you find Quakers under every shadow.

The Quaker Anthony Benezet published a formative attack on the slave trade in 1772, 17 years before Wilberforce’s first abolition motion. Long before Wilberforce first spoke on the issue, the Quakers had formed a campaigning group, petitioned Parliament and distributed tens of thousands of free tracts.

When the first Anglicans got involved – the philanthropist Granville Sharp, the rector James Ramsay and the passionate young ordinand Thomas Clarkson – it was the Quakers who published their literature and brought them together.

Thus the Abolition Committee was formed, the engine of the movement. It consisted of 12 men, nine of them Quakers. The evidence and testimonies that Clarkson dug up for them all round the country were essential to the cause, but equally essential was the PR genius of the Quakers.

They had a century of experience campaigning for their own rights, and channelled this expertise into defending the rights of slaves. As Adam Hochschild has argued in Bury the Chains, the movement forged most of the tools used by campaigners today. They pioneered the mass petition and the consumer boycott, targeting Caribbean sugar.

The committee invented the campaign slogan and logo, commissioning Wedgwood to produce a design of a slave in chains with the words “Am I not a man and a brother?”. They got the poet William Cowper to write them a civil rights ballad. And in the greatest PR coup of the movement, the committee’s publication of the Brookes diagram, which showed 482 slaves lying shoulder to shoulder, made “an instantaneous impression of horror on all who saw it” according to Clarkson.

The national network of Quaker meeting houses proved vital to mobilising the public and spreading information. Some of the most radical anti-slavery voices were Quakers – such as Elizabeth Heyrick, who argued, exceptionally, that when the slaves were freed it was they and not their owners who should be compensated.

The Quakers were natural enemies of slavery, with their fundamental belief in equality in a hierarchical society where that was still highly controversial. They believed above all else that every person is made in the image of God and carries the divine light, so it is blasphemous to elevate one above another.

They refused to raise their hats to their social betters or to call them “my lord”, “my lady” or even “you”, insisting on the familiar “thou”. Their egalitarianism was still quite scandalous in the 18th Century, but it made slavery uniquely abhorrent to the Quakers.

The problem was that they were a dangerous sect of fanatics, according to the received wisdom, so no-one listened to a word they said. They were excluded from public office.

This is why they needed to work with Anglicans like Wilberforce, who brought both respectability and political power to the movement. It is also why their involvement was not especially celebrated at the time, and why it was easily forgotten afterwards.

The modern Quakers do not plan any major national commemoration of their role in ending the trade, preferring for the most part low-key local services. Their efforts will instead be focused on current campaigns, including their efforts to end the use of child soldiers.

They are not the only unsung heroes of abolition. James Ramsay, for example, had a huge impact, being the first Anglican clergyman to publish revelations of plantation life, and became a martyr to the movement when constant attacks from colonists destroyed his health.

But there can be few people who have done so much in such a good cause as the Quakers, and been so little recognised.

blogher

Wow. My IWD post, “Is it because of all that armpit hair?” is featured on this blogher article about youtube feminism. Cool!

More and more, I feel that feminism is returning. I know the term itself has baggage, and that there are numerous women who feel that the movement is too fractured with vying groups for it to have any focus or effect. But I’m hopeful that it can and that it will.

As I predicted/prophesied at the Sunstone Symposium last summer, I believe that the Internet will be the biggest influence on the world of LDS feminism. By the same token, I believe the ‘Net will have huge impact on feminism at large–enough to initiate a new wave of activism and social change. When I see groups like Mojo Moms, Coalition of Women for Peace, Moms Rising, Women for Women, and similar organizations that are building a strong presence via the web, I am filled with hope.

Yes, I know that there are problems with attempting to organize feminists. There are factions along lines of identity politics and issues with essentializing gender. But I think there are things that we can agree on, and we can move forward with the movement by finding common ground.

veggie-tarian

I felt that a reply to Elise’s recent comment warranted a whole post. She asked:

Would you be willing to share a little more about your own vegetarian lifestyle? Are you 100% strict on not eating any animal products, or do you eat a little bit of meat here and there?

My reply:
I’m not a strict vegetarian right now. I occasionally eat meat or meat-based products (e.g. chicken broth) on conditions of necessity or hospitality. For example, if a friend cooks me dinner and doesn’t know of my vegetarianism, then I will often taste some of their meat-based food (though I rarely eat much of meaty stuff and I generally refuse beef altogether).

Having said that, I must confess that I do occasionally eat seafood. I cook salmon about twice/month (wild caught Alaskan or Canadian) because it is a family favorite. I also indulge in sushi a few times per year.

I try, with some success thanks to Trader Joes, to source our dairy products from organic farms. I feel that organic dairy tastes better and is a better choice than traditional dairy practices. I wish I had the time and energy to give up animal products altogether. I did for a few months and my body felt wonderful. But it was an awful lot of work and I think my kids would be unhappy if I encouraged them to eat that way all the time.

Elise and others, I heartily recommend Francis Lappe’s Diet for a Small Planet if you want to learn more about the environmental costs of meat production. This book is a bit old, but still a good read on the topic and you can generally find used copies of it for just a few dollars.

Elephant Loves

May I highly recommend the latest Speaking of Faith podcast with an interview with Quaker biologist Katy Payne.

Katy is also the author of Silent Thunder. Katy was the first biologist to discover that elephants communicate with each other over long distances through sounds that humans can’t hear. Katy attributes her findings to her ability to “listen” to silence, as she learned in Silent Worship with Friends.

Her podcast speaks of her research with whales, the environmental degredation in Africa, death, depression,and what we all can do to help preserve the biodiversity of our world. And it’s just breathtakingly beautiful.

for she who suffers

From a recent Women for Women flyer:

~80% of all refugees and displaced persons globally are women and children

~Rape is used as a tool of genocide and weapon of war: 20K Bosnian women raped during the Balkan War; 500K Rwandese women raped during the ’94 genocide; 100K+ of Congolese women raped in the DRC war

~70% of the world’s 1.3 billion poor are women

~90% of today’s war casualties are civilians, 75% of whom are women and children.

These are each shocking statistics. As I sit here reading through each one and trying to wrap my head around the suffering contained in these few lines I am completely humbled by my own good fortune, and at the same time I am ANGRY that this is my world, our world, in which this is happening.

On the advice of TanyaSue, last week I read Nectar in a Sieveand I thought a lot about the protagonist, Rukmani, and the vicissitudes of economic uncertainty in India that routinely left her and her children with only a handful of rice to eat each day. She watched family members die from malnutrition as she struggled to eke out a quiet life under intolerably harsh circumstances.

This book made me question: at what price do I enjoy this warm apartment that I sit in as I type on my laptop, pantry cupboards full, nearly every modern convenience at my fingertips. What right do I have to live in such privilege?

Awhile back I read of a young man about my age who decided to live as simply as possible, that he could give more of his money to those that suffer. He had only two sets of clothing. He slept on a mat on the floor with a thin blanket. He gave away all of his possessions except for those necessary in his nonprofit work.

What do you think? Are you tempted to abandon your comforts for the sake of another?

clothes. clothes. clothes…

Where do you draw the line between wearing clothes that are functional and comfortable, and those that might flatter your figure better or be more fashionable?

I picked up a copy of Adena Halpern’s Target Underwear and a Vera Wang Gown from the library yesterday, thinking that it might be an interesting rumination on the subject of clothes. Well, it was an interesting book if one wants to learn about the many designer outfits of the author, and how her well-heeled boyfriends have responded to her fashion choices. But not enlightening to me.

I’m sort of a fashion scrooge, I think.

Well, really, I love beautiful clothes. I enjoy looking through catalogs and fantasizing about owning cashmere sweaters, dresses of velvet and satin, or the perfect pair of butt-flattering jeans. And even though I do regularly spend money on clothes, I do so quite begrudgingly and with loads of guilt. The guilt doesn’t so much come from the money that I spend (although that can certainly be a factor). Rather the guilt comes from buying a commodity that, deep-down, I see as superficial, even worthless. Because I know that my body rarely needs new clothing. I have a closet and a chest of drawers full of items that I can wear for warmth and protection. So the guilt of from knowing that any clothing that I purchase is solely for my vanity. I do not NEED new clothes. So why do I keep buying them?

And I also know that clothing manufacturers routinely exploit women in developing countries, that many cloth fibers are grown in ways that pollute our environment, and that the modest amount of money I spend on clothes each month could easily support a family in Africa.

So, taking all of that into account, what’s a girl to do? Blow off fashion and continue wearing (and re-wearing) older clothes? Only buy from environmentally-responsible companies? Buy clothes with impunity, knowing that one’s choices are hardly a fraction of a drop in the bucket compared to worldwide consumption?