Through Sylvia Pankhurst’s account on November 9, 1909, we
can learn interesting aspects about WSPU women other than the Pankhursts. While
this letter primarily discusses force-feeding and its dire consequences, other curious
facts arise from it as well. Miss Brown, according to Sylvia Pankhurst, was
imprisoned due to an incident in Guild Hall on Lord Mayer’s Day (CP 225).
Sylvia Pankhurst stated that “Miss Brown, having carefully selected a pane of
the stained-glass window upon which there was no ornament, and which she
thought might be easily replaced, stooped down, took off her shoe, and smashed
the chosen pane in order that her shout of “Votes for Women” might be heard by
those below” (CP 225). From this recollection, we can determine that though
militancy was the preferred method of gaining attention, some WSPU women, like
Miss Brown, took thought into what they were destroying. In Miss Brown’s case,
she chose to break a pane of no consequence, most likely because she did not
want to destroy precious and beautiful property. Breaking a plain pane would
likely have gotten the same attention as breaking a precious one would. I
believe Miss Brown’s actions may show that these WSPU women had a sense of
courtesy even while they destroyed property.
Another interesting aspect of this account was the utter contempt
Sylvia Pankhurst and other WSPU women had for the iconic British leader Winston
Churchill. According to Pankhurst, a Miss Theresa Garnet “resolved to humiliate
Mr. Churchill, both as a member of the Government which preferred rather to
imprison women than to enfranchise them and to torture them rather than to
extend toward them the ordinary privileges of political prisoners; and also on
his own account for his slippery and disingenuous statements in regard to the
Votes for Women question” (CP 225). While many today perceive Churchill to be a
hero of World War Two, it seems that his thoughts towards women may have been
misogynistic.
Questions:
Do you think taking into account what they were destroying
and how valuable it could be made WSPU’s militancy any more justifiable?
When considering Iconic figures in history, such as
Churchill, do you think that their chauvinistic tendencies towards women should
alter your view of them? 
I chose this image because it closely relates to how Miss Garnet accosted Mr. Churchill.
1 comment:
McKenzie, it is great that you picked up on the detail about Miss Brown and created your own original argument. I agree with you that Churchill has been held at an elevated status and he has an overall good reputation from modern students. In answering your second question, I would answer yes it should matter. Every political leader is going to make both good and bad decisions and people need to remember that the are human and that their good or bad deeds should not overshadow the opposite. As historians, we are more concerned with the truth and details than making overarching statements about politicians. Virtually all of our presidents have controversial reputations which often lead to heated debates, for example former presidents Clinton and Bush in recent years as well as LBJ who some regard as a hero for his involvement with civil rights and others think poorly of him for his actions in the Vietnam War. In summary, it should matter what Churchills stance was on women's rights, but only in order to see him entirely historically accurate and not to scorn or judge him.
Post a Comment