I'm conflicted about suffragettes: WSPU's violence and adopting their flag/colours for contemporary purposes

[yetanotherusernameAgain]

Probably like many people, I grew up learning a little about 'the suffragettes' and thinking "Yay! Good for them, what heroines" etc etc. There was mention of criminal acts and violence but no real detail and generally they were presented as a Good Thing.

In later life I found out more about the violence and learnt the distinction between "suffragist" and "suffragette". I realised I didn't approve of the suffragettes' violent actions (read here for examples libcom.org/history/violence-suffragette-movement) which precludes me from idolising the Pankhursts and the WSPU.

Usually not a problem but now the 'suffragette flag' (which is basically WSPU's flag) is topical and gaining popularity. Hence my conflict: I don't want to adopt the emblem of bombers and arsonists but I want to show my support for the reasons behind the flag/colours' current resurgence.

How can I reconcile that? Adopt the colours but not the flag? Or is that hypocritical? Are there any emblems of the suffrage movement with non-violent connotations?

Martin Luther King was regularly asked to condemn some activists for their impatience, transgressions, and failure to conform to societal restrictions. He was instructed to condemn those who practised violence or rioted.

MLK argued that we need a plurality of voices and approaches, see, Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth....we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. ...

I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Adopt it if you want to; don't if you don't.

Avoid passive aggressive attempts to shame women who choose differently.

This would be my (simple) plan. Nothing to agonise over.

Each to their own

I'm aware of history. I often talk with young people (students) who have no idea who Lee Harvey Oswald is, or who the Kennedys were.

The ignorance about WW2 and many historical events is breathtaking. They have no understanding of totalitarianism or fascism - they're words they bandy about - altho' it had its black humour, see the recent nonsense about gulags being really a form of educational holiday camp.

I'd accept the suffragette colours as a symbol. I'd accept the history as the history of any civil rights movement. I'm interested that there are some historians who are questioning whether the news stories of bombings were the early C20 equivalent of fake news. This is based on the stories around European bombers at the time (see Conrad's Secret Agent).

"Non-violent tension" is the aim - I often wonder, however, how far most civil rights movements would have progressed without their more militant groups drawing attention.

Is it possible that outrageous (relatively speaking) activities provide the outside frame of an Overton window for negotiations with the more 'moderate' groups to appeal as the better course of action.

However, your concerns and perspectives may well be very different.

Long live the plurality of voices and perspective!

Do you think there is never a place for taking up arms?

Apartheid? Against the Nazis? Someone enters my home? The Sandinistas? The Viet Cong?

If you are firmly against any form of armed struggle, then that's your absolute stance and don't adopt the symbols of something you disagree with. If however, you agree that others are allowed to take up arms but not women, that's really interesting. And worth a think about.

I think there is no liberation movement in history where there was not a fraction that used violence. And even people who chose nonviolent means often did so for tactical reasons (if you want to win, don‘t use the means that the oppressor is better at, violence, but discredit the oppressor in the eyes of the public by demonstrating their violence in the face of nonviolent resistance).

You would have to denounce many liberation movements, including Mandela, la Resistance and the Warshaw Uprising, if violence is unacceptable for you on principle.

Their tactics worked.

The suffragette movement was something that was carried out by women. It can't be 'transed' or taken over by men and for that reason I think the colours are appropiate. As for the violence, well it seems to have gone both ways, doesn't it. I guess they were more violent times.

I think what sets their struggle apart from women‘s struggle in the West, today, is that we have Democratic participation, a vote. So violence cannot be justified. But without a political voice? I have a hard time condemning them, never having walked in their shoes... idk

these posts are really thought provoking

I also think there is a difference between violence used to take power, to redraw borders, to frighten people out of their homes or livelihoods, vs. that used to obtain civil rights for individuals.

Since I heard of the -gist/-gette thing (and the violence), I've thought well obviously I'd have been a suffragist

Who knows though

Another suffragist. I think that the -ists made at least as much a contribution as the -ettes and don't generally get the credit they deserve. It's a long-running and fascinating debate, of course.

Thanks for engaging.

I'm not a pacifist so it's not that I don't believe in armed struggle. But I used to think suffragettes chained themselves to railings, scuffled with police, maybe threw eggs etc, that sort of thing. I don't consider that to be 'violence' as such. Maybe it's the sort of 'tension' Dr King was referring to.

But I've since learned about the severity of some of their actions (and I'm talking about the militant suffragettes, possibly only WSPU members) and it has put it in a new light, especially because of parallels with public safety in my own lifetime, eg IRA bombscares in the 90s, today's security checks when entering museums and galleries, acid attacks. There was an interesting display in the National Portrait Gallery a couple of year's ago: militant suffragettes were damaging paintings and display cases in museums etc so security measures were introduced: items over a certain size had to be left in the cloakroom and a woman by herself wasn't allowed into the gallery. And 100 years later we have bag checks when entering museums because of the current terror threat. And arson is a big no-no for me (and I have wondered under what circumstances I might consider doing it myself! Under enemy occupation - possibly. Anything less - probably not.).

Do people actually know about this side of the suffragette movement? And yes, I know it wasn't representative of the whole suffrage movement but I see people merrily adopting the flag icon or women and girls dressing up as a "suffragette" (with the WSPU emblems) and I think "Are you actually aware of what WSPU members did?". Do people think (as I used to) that 'suffragette' covers all women involved in the suffrage movement? Do they realise WSPU (whose colours and visual imagery seems to have become iconic of the whole movement) were just one party and weren't the entire movement?

So back to my original question: are there any emblems with non-violent connotations? Did purple/white/green become emblematic of the suffrage movement and not just restricted to WSPU? (An easy cop-out for me if so )

I don't think you need to agree with everything a group did to admire them generally and agree with their aims. Fwiw, I would have been a Suffragist, and I would not have supported bombs and arson. But when women were force-fed and attacked, I can certainly understand why direct action was chosen, and I have no problem with using the colours.

It's the old one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist thing.

This article is interesting www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragettes-violence-and-militancy

I find that many people have a scant or hazy knowledge of history. So, no - I doubt that many people understand the nuance of WSPU, Suffragettes and Suffragists.

That said, it's common for particular figures or civil rights groups to undergo Santa Clausification that brushes out actions that later generations might deplore or condemn.

I think the colours are now associated with the historical landmark of votes for women rather than WSPU. It's rather like Canute, the origin story has been lost.

I have no difficulty with the colours tho' I gather the official colour for Women's Rights internationally in 2018 is violet. If you were to opt for another colour, I doubt it would have the iconic recognition factor of marking an historic moment in women's rights.

www.internationalwomensday.com/Activity/11302/Take-ownership-of-purple-in-2018-Violet-is-Pantone-Color-of-the-Year

Also www.bl.uk/votes-for-women/articles/suffragists-and-suffragettes for the difference between suffragists and suffragettes

Wasn’t part of the ideological difference that the suffragists were campaigning pragmatically and nonviolently, within the law, for primarily older, property owning, presumably more middle class women to be given votes?
Suffragettes felt they were engaged in a revolutionary struggle for the principle of votes for all women.

You'll be amazed that I have worn those colours, and proudly worn them. But I wear them only in my WW1 costume and character. Our modern feminist aims are not theirs (whichever modern feminist flag we might fly) , and it is wrong to appropriate their badge now, in the same way that it is wrong to wear medals that you have not earned.

It is not wrong, however, to be very grateful for the rights both the suffragettes and suffragists earned for us.

It's hardly like people were politely and passively listening to them though, was it?

I'm aware of the history, but I wonder what I would do in such desperate times?

I am adopting the flag/colours because it feels right.

I agree with you. I understand that suffragettes felt that they were fighting a war and in a way they were. But they were fighting the wrong people. Its like anti tsarist who joined communists. Fighting back is one thing. It is dignified and morally just. But fighting for the sake of it because you ate angry and you ate frustrated isn't acceptable. I grateful for women's suffrage but not to the extent that I can accept acts of violence.

I can’t get worked up about this at all. The colours symbolise the whole movement and the concept of the struggle for women’s rights to people today, they don’t specifically represent the violent actions of a few individuals over a hundred years ago, unless you very much make it an issue.

I don’t recall hand wringing when Danny Boyle used the suffrage movement (colours, outfits, placards) as part of the Olympic Games opening ceremony, celebrating the best of GB to a global audience. Women’s right to vote was praised then as one of our many gifts to the world.

Thanks for the links - I actually came across both those pages earlier today . I thought I might have aligned with the Women's Freedom League instead of WSPU but it turns out two of their members were responsible for attacking ballot papers with corrosive liquids which resulted in a man losing sight in one eye.

I've looked into it some more and WSPU introduced the colours in 1908 and, according to this blog irishwomenshistory.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-colours-of-suffragettes.html, shops cottoned on to the popularity of the colours and started selling goods in those colours quite soon after (even Mappin & Webb jewellers!). WSPU didn't ramp up their militant actions until 1912, so that's at least 4 years that the colours were in use before being associated with acts I disapprove of.

So I think I've talked myself into accepting the colours but I'm still hesitant to adopt anything entirely WSPU-specific.

And the Canute story: is it true that he knew he couldn't hold back the tide and was trying to demonstrate that he wasn't as powerful as people thought? But the story got twisted and now everyone thinks he was a deranged fool?

Now, does anyone know where I can buy purple/white/green striped ribbon? Preferably gros grain ...

There's shades of right and wrong in everything isn't there? No one is a saint and every movement has its extremes.

I mean, when you think of the British army, do you think of innocent people being killed on the streets on Bloody Sunday or do you think of the the world wars and heroism?

Oh, I have no illusions about any country's armed forces being 'heroes' per se. When the media trots out the "war veterans are heroes and deserve our respect" platitudes I'm usually thinking "yeah, but what were they like in the rest of their life?". They may well have been a violent, alcoholic, wife abusing, paedophilic, thieving bastard (although probably not all at the same time - I have a vivid imagination). And there are definitely thieving bastards in today's army cos I know someone who had his stuff nicked at Catterick.