As we celebrate Women’s
History Month, we should note that more women are serving in Congress now than
have ever served before. And a majority of the candidates for the 2020
presidential election are women. This week one of the people most responsible
for this revolutionary change is leaving the active political scene. Hilary
Clinton has announced that she will not be a candidate for president in 2020.
It’s about time we recognized all that she has done to make the changes in our
political life possible.
Women in Congress
There have been other women candidates for President over the years. The notorious Victoria Woodhull ran for president as long ago as 1872, but no other woman has opened the door for a female president as wide as Hillary Clinton has. She has been opening doors for women now for more than a generation.
How many of us
remember when Clinton became first lady in 1993? She took over the role of the
previous First Lady, Barbara Bush, and the contrast was sharp. Barbara Bush
followed the typical path of women who grew up in the early twentieth century.
She dropped out of Smith College to marry George H.W. Bush and to follow her
husband around the country while he served in the military and went on to his
career. When she became First Lady in 1989, she promised that she would be a
“traditional” First Lady.
Hillary Clinton
followed a different path. She completed her college degree at Wellesley
College and went on to Yale law school. Like Barbara Bush, she met her future
husband while she was a student, but she chose not to interrupt her education.
She and Bill Clinton moved to Arkansas, but after they married, she continued
to use her maiden name. Her decision to keep that name was unusual at the time
and apparently caused some dispute with both her mother and her mother-in-law,
but Hillary was already forging a path that would be followed by many other
women in years to come.
Hillary Clinton
The public career
of Hillary Clinton is too well-known to need retelling. She served as First
Lady in her husband’s administration and later as Senator from New York. She
became Secretary of State in the Obama administration and travelled to more
countries than any Secretary of State had done previously. During all of her
assignments, her life was made more difficult because she was a woman. Often
the comments were just plain silly. These ranged from complaints about her
remark as First Lady that she didn’t stay home and bake cookies, to criticism
of the pants suits she often wore. She was a true pioneer and the choices she
made no doubt seemed threatening to some conservatives at the time, but no one
today would give them a second thought.
During the 2016
presidential election, Hillary Clinton got more votes than the man who became
president, but because of our complicated Electoral College system, those votes
were not enough to win the office. We will never know how much the 2016 race
was influenced by the reluctance of many men, and some women, to vote for a
woman for president.
Hillary Clinton’s
long service to her country in many capacities has paved the way for the more
equitable Congress that we now have and for the number of women who are willing
to run for office. Surely we all owe her a vote of thanks for that.
We owe her more than a vote of thanks. The next government building that is built in Washington D.C. should be named for Hillary Clinton. She deserves the tribute for changing the role of women in our government and ushering in a new era of gender equality in politics. Let’s put this on the agenda. What a wonderful way to celebrate Women’s History Month!
Doing the right thing doesn’t always lead to applause. Mark Twain famously said, “Always do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” More than that, it will sometimes be called wrong and condemned as disloyalty. So many recent news stories tell us about people who do wrong things—praising tyrants and rewarding cruelty—and suffering nothing for their behavior that I think it’s time to honor some people who have chosen the right path and stuck to it even when condemned by others. One American woman who should be honored for her courage in standing up for the unpopular cause of ending slavery is Elizabeth Van Lew.
Slavery
had been a problem since the beginning of the country. By 1850s, some
Virginians and people in other Southern states were talking about breaking away
from the United States over the slavery question. They worried that Northerners
would put an end to slavery and this would cause hardship for the South.
Eventually the quarreling became so bitter that the Virginia legislature voted to quit the United States.
They joined the Confederacy of Southern states to become a new country.
Elizabeth Van Lew
Still
many Virginians did not want to leave the United States. Men who opposed
joining the Confederacy could join the Union Army and fight to preserve the
country. Women weren’t allowed to be soldiers, so they had to find different
ways of supporting the United
States. Elizabeth van Lew was one of these
women. She believed that slavery was wrong. She loved Virginia, but she loved her country more and
believed secession was a tragedy.
After
fighting broke out close to Richmond, Elizabeth and her mother got permission
to nurse wounded Union soldiers. Elizabeth
helped the soldiers write letters to their families. She also found another way
to help—she became a spy.
A
network of people helped get soldiers’ letters to the Northern states. They
were taken on boats flying a “flag of truce,” which were allowed to sail
between Virginia and the Northern States. General Benjamin Butler, a Union
officer, heard about Elizabeth’s
work and asked whether she could send information about the movements of
Southern troops. He did this by sending a letter addressed to “my dear aunt”
and signed with a false name. The letter was carried to Elizabeth by a Northern agent who slipped
through the Confederate lines. When the letter was treated with acid and heat,
another letter written in invisible ink appeared. In this letter Butler asked her if she
would “aid the Union cause by furnishing me with information”.
Soon
Elizabeth was able to set up a system through which she could send secret
messages to a false address in the North. They were then picked up and sent to
General Butler. Elizabeth
couldn’t travel around the city, because she was a well-known and wealthy woman
and people noticed her. Usually she sent a servant, often a young boy, to carry
the letters to the ship. People didn’t pay much attention to teenage boys
walking around the streets near the port.
Elizabeth
got her information just by watching what was going on in the city. She was
also able to talk with Confederate army officers and officials. Most of them
did not believe a woman could be collecting information for the North. They
considered Elizabeth
just another wealthy society woman.
Elizabeth
not only sent information to the North. She also helped to hide Union prisoners
when they escaped from the military prisons in Richmond. She and her mother nursed prisoners
who were sick or injured and let them stay in the house until they were strong
enough to travel.
When the
war ended with the Union victory, Elizabeth was made postmaster of Richmond as a
tribute to her services to the Union cause. But within a couple of years she
lost that job because of political changes. Most of her neighbors never forgave
her for being loyal to her country instead of to the South. She lived a sad and
lonely life, forgotten by the North and scorned by the Southerners who lived
around her. It takes a lot of courage to fight and suffer for an unpopular
cause.
Blood pressure must have soared these past few weeks all across America as fury reigned in Washington over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The struggle pitted not only Republicans against Democrats, but often men against women. People couldn’t even agree on what the argument was about. Was the basic question whether or not Kavanaugh had committed a sexual assault 36 years ago? Or was it about whether his overwrought, hysterical claim that “leftists” had conspired against him revealed a glaringly unjudicial temperament?
What we are left with now is a Supreme Court that reflects the views of only a minority of Americans. Many of the justices’ decisions will be questioned because by people who believe their views have not been heard and their wishes have not been respected. In part this is because in recent years gerrymandering and voter suppression in the states have kept many people’s votes from being heard. But far more tragically, many people did not vote because they just did not bother. Demonstrating against Congressional actions that seem unfair may make people feel good, but voting is far more effective for changing the country.
Women especially, whose voting rights were earned with so much pain and bitterness, should feel particularly guilty if they don’t vote regularly. It is hard to believe that only 43% of women who were eligible to vote in the 2014 Midterm elections cast a ballot. We can do better than that.
Now that the 2018 Midterms are only a few weeks away, how are women going to respond? There are more female candidates running for office than ever before, but they need the support of women who may never run for office, but who can surely vote and ensure they are represented by people who reflect their views.
When we look back at the history of women’s voting, there is a lot to inspire us. Susan B. Anthony and a group of women went to the polls in Rochester, N.Y. in 1872 and voted, claiming that they had the constitutional right to do so. Local authorities did not agree and arrested the women. The judge at Anthony’s trial did not allow the jurors to discuss the case, but directed them to find Anthony guilty. He fined her $100, which she refused to pay, hoping to move the case to the Supreme Court, but the judge successfully blocked that path by refusing to send her to jail. Nonetheless, the trial generated a lot of publicity and advanced the prospect of women’s suffrage.
We’ve come a long way since those days, but now that we have the vote, it is up to us to use it. Unless women are active participants in elections, they will not be treated as equal to the powerful men who run the country. Now is the time to register and vote!
With all the bad news in world this week, there was one major event that made almost everyone happy—the royal wedding in England. Prince Harry married Megan Markle, an American actress. Even though Harry is 6th in line for the throne and very unlikely ever to become king, the wedding was treated as a major milestone in British history. The fact that Ms. Markle is a divorced biracial woman and an American makes her different from most people who have married royals, but the habit of marrying foreigners has a long history.
European royals have married across borders for centuries. Cultures have mingled, religions have been changed to suit the new country, and new customs spread across the continent. Queen Victoria’s consort, Prince Albert, is even credited with introducing the Christmas tree to England–an important innovation if there ever was one–although some historians dispute his role in that.
The Georgian kings, who reigned during the 18th century, all married German princesses and brought many European ideas and customs to England. They also seem to have brought a lot of good sense too. Queen Caroline of Ansbach has been called the most intelligent consort in British history and was known in her own time as a strong political force. In fact a ballad written at the time warns her husband, George II, that she outshone him.
You may strut, dapper George, but ’twill all be in vain,
We all know ’tis Queen Caroline, not you, that reign –
You govern no more than Don Philip of Spain.
Then if you would have us fall down and adore you,
Lock up your fat spouse, as your dad did before you.
Despite this kind of satire, Caroline was a good influence on the king and on the country. When she died, she was widely mourned by citizens who admired her strength and intelligence. At a time when monarchs had far more political influence than they do now, she was able to help shape modern England.
The importance of the royal family has dwindled since the days of the Georges, of course. The brides of all members of the royal family now seem to function mostly as fashion plates and supporters of good causes. But they still have an important role in bringing some new ideas and backgrounds to the royal household.
Megan Markle’s mixed heritage echoes much of what is going on in Britain today. The recent scandal over people from the Caribbean who were invited to move to Britain after World War II to relieve the labor shortage shows that race is still an issue. Ms. Markle’s heritage and the attention that was paid during the wedding ceremony to the African culture that is a part of the United Kingdom may help to move the country toward a greater acceptance of its broadly based cultural heritage.
Moving the country into a greater acceptance of its diversity may be the most important result of this highly-publicized wedding. That would demonstrate that even after all these years the monarchy can still be an important uniting force for the British people. It would be nice, of course, if the wedding also leads to a long and happy marriage for Harry and his bride.
When literary people talk about women poets they often mention famous figures from the past. Emily Dickinson is the American poet who almost defined poetry for generations of schoolchildren as well as adults. Her name is familiar
Emily Dickinson
to most readers, and a movie about her life, A Quiet Passion, impressed critics and moviegoers as recently as last year. The pale, reclusive Emily in her white dresses, scribbling her poems on little pieces of paper in her room seems the ideal poet.
Other women poets of the past are also well known. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, confined to her sickbed for years until rescued by Robert Browning, who took her to Italy and helped her become famous. Female poets are often associated with illness, delicacy and fragility. They are viewed as weak creatures, prone to suicide and early deaths. But not all women poets fit this pattern. Today I want to look back and honor the tough woman who proved that a woman could be both a writer and an active participant in worldly life—Aphra Behn.
One of the reasons Aphra Behn is not remembered, perhaps, is that we know little about her life. She was born, probably in 1640, almost two hundred years before Emily Dickinson in England. Her parents might have been a barber and a wet nurse, or perhaps not. One indisputable fact is that she learned to read and write, a rare privilege among working class women of her time. The gift of literacy made it possible for her to meet and mingle with people of all classes. Her introduction to aristocrats may have come through one of the families her mother met while acting as a wet nurse.
Coming of age during the restoration, when Charles II returned to the throne, gave Aphra an opportunity to become active in the world of theater and publishing. As Oliver
Aphra Behn–sketch
Cromwell’s puritan restrictions were removed, there was an outpouring of publishing and theater. Starting out as a poet, Aphra turned to writing fiction and produced the story Oroonoko, set in Surinam, which became a long-lasting best seller. Later she turned to writing plays. She also, apparently, served as a spy for Charles II. Because she seldom discussed her background, very few facts are well established. One thing that we know for sure is that she was finally buried in Westminster Abbey—although not in the poets corner where many of her male friends and colleagues lie.
For those who would like more information about her life, I recommend a biography by Janet Todd, Aphra Behn: A Secret Life. It is long, but gives a continuously fascinating picture of a life shaped by history and secrets.
Perhaps the most important statement about Aphra Behn was made by Virginia Woolf in her essay “A Room of Her Own”. All women together, ought to let flowers fall upon the grave of Aphra Behn… for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds… Behn proved that money could be made by writing at the sacrifice, perhaps, of certain agreeable qualities; and so by degrees writing became not merely a sign of folly and a distracted mind but was of practical importance.
So as we read the poetry of the delicate women poets of the 19th century during this Poetry Month, we also ought to pay tribute to a woman who came before them. She struggled with poverty and class prejudices to make her way in a man’s world and in doing so she ensured that women’s voices would eventually be heard.
My interest in women who were notable in their time but did not earn the recognition of an obituary in a major newspaper led me to learn more about several fascinating
Americans. May Alcott Nieriker, sister of Louisa May Alcott, was a devoted artist, but was never became famous. At least her life was more exciting than her fictional counterpart, Amy, in Little Women.
May Alcott was born in Concord, Massachusetts on July 26, 1840 to Bronson and Abigail Alcott. As a young child she lived in the Utopian community, Fruitlands, which her father had started. The rules were strict—no animal food, not even milk for young children. When her mother tried to milk the cow for ailing two-year-old May, her father decreed, “We don’t allow milk on this farm. Pure water is the best drink for all God’s creatures.”
“Why can’t we live the way other people do?” his wife protested. That question was one young May Alcott would ask often as she grew older, and she never found an answer.
As May grew up she was independent and ambitious. She was determined to earn money herself and not depend on a husband’s support. It would not be easy to support herself as an artist. Many girls studied art but when they grew up, they were expected to get married and let their husbands support the family. Professional artists were almost always men. May studied art in Boston, and she gave art lessons, but made so little money that she had to turn to teaching.
May’s life was dramatically changed by the success of Louisa’s book, Little Women. Now there was money for new clothes and books and even travel. For years May had longed to study art in Europe. The great museums and picturesque castles, churches, and cities
Louisa May Alcott
of Italy and France were unlike anything in America. May had never seen famous paintings or statues. She had learned about European paintings by looking at copies made by Americans who traveled abroad. Some of the copies were good, but they were only small imitations of what the artist had created. Now at last she would be able to see the glowing colors of the originals.
Two years after the publication of Little Women, Louisa finished writing An Old Fashioned Girl. Now the two sisters had their chance to travel. On April 2, 1870, May and Louisa and their friend Alice Bartlett sailed to France. Everything was different from what they had been accustomed to in New England. Instead of fresh white clapboard houses, they saw homes, some of them centuries old, built of stone. Instead of simple wooden churches, they saw shadowy cathedrals with statues, candles, and stained glass windows. May carried her sketchbook everywhere, always ready to capture the changing sights that surprised her so much.
The study years in Europe were May’s happiest times, but she and Louisa could not remain there long. Their mother was growing old and ill; their sister Anna’s husband died. Louisa went home first to help out and then May followed. For the next several years family responsibilities tied May down. It wasn’t until 1876 that she had a chance to return to France.
This time, May went directly to Paris where she joined two friends from home, Kate and Rose Peckham. The three of them settled into comfortable lodgings and arranged for art lessons. Suitable art classes for women were not easy to find because art students learned to draw people by having live models in class. For many people the idea of women looking at people who were nude or lightly clothed was shocking. Even worse was the idea of having men and women in the same class looking at these models. Because of this, many of the famous art schools in Paris did not accept women. May was disappointed, but she made the best of her situation. She found a teacher, Monsieur Krug, who solved the problem by accepting only women in his classes.
Not only was May a successful student, but one of her paintings was chosen from among the thousands submitted for the Paris Salon exhibit of 1877. May was eager to share her triumph with her family. No longer would Louisa be the only successful Alcott. May wrote to her mother:
Who would have imagined such good fortune, and so strong a proof that Lu does not monopolize all the Alcott talent. Ha! Ha! Sister, this is the first feather plucked from your cap, and I shall endeavor to fill mine with so many waving in the breeze that you will be quite ready to lay down your pen and rest on your laurels already won.
When the first viewing day of the Salon arrived, May went very early to see how her picture was hung. She found it was dwarfed by the huge canvases around it, but thought it held its own because the hanging committee had placed it at eye level where everyone could easily see it. Many of the artists and visitors complimented her on her painting. She felt very festive in her fashionable black silk dress and was surprised at how easily she mingled with the smart, artistic crowd. At last her patience and persistence were being rewarded. After years of being a student, she was finally being recognized as a real artist. She moved to London to pursue her career.
Meanwhile in Concord, the Alcott family was struggling with May’s mother’s failing health. Louisa wrote to urge May to come home and spend some time with her mother. May was torn between wanting to return to Concord and longing to stay abroad. She knew her mother missed her, and she wanted to be with her family at this difficult time. One day she walked to the steamship office to buy a ticket to sail to America, but when she got to the office, she turned back. She was afraid leaving Europe would mean giving up all her artistic hopes. Her dream was to return home with a strong record of artistic achievement to make her mother proud.
In November, that dream ended when May received word that her mother had died. She was overwhelmed with grief and felt guilty about her decision to remain in Europe. Although American friends were kind and helpful, May spent most of her time alone. She avoided people who came to express their sympathy, because she found it difficult to talk about her mother without crying. Instead, she took long walks through the dark, rainy London streets and spent hours in Westminster Abbey listening to organ music. She wrote to Louisa, “I try to do as she would have me and perhaps shall work the better for the real suffering I never knew till now.”
One of her boarding house friends was a young Swiss businessman named Ernest Nieriker. During the darkest days of her grief, she could hear him playing the violin in his room across the hall from hers. He knew the music cheered her, so he would leave his door open as he played. He also offered to read to her in the evenings when her eyes were tired, or to play chess with her. He and May soon became close friends and their friendship slowly turned into love. Although he earned his living in business, Ernest was deeply interested in both art and music. May found him very congenial, and he encouraged and appreciated her work.
By March, there was another artistic triumph to celebrate. May had two pictures accepted at the Ladies Exhibition in London. But soon she had an even greater event to write home about. Ernest asked her to marry him! He was several years younger than she was, but they shared a love of music and art. Best of all, Ernest encouraged May to continue her artistic career.
May’s father and sisters were astonished at this sudden engagement, but even more startling news was soon to come. Within a few days of their engagement, Ernest received unexpected news. He would have to leave London for at least a year to work for his business in either France or Russia. May and Ernest were unhappy at the thought of being separated for such a long time and Ernest made a bold suggestion:
Why should we not have this year together? Life seems too short to lose so much. If you will consent to forego a fine wedding and fine trousseau and begin with me now, we can enjoy so much together.
And so May’s life took another turn for the better. The young couple was very happy and soon May was pregnant. She looked forward to having a child and to continuing her artistic career with Ernest’s help. Once again things went wrong. May died a few weeks after the birth of her healthy daughter.
Despite her early death, which meant that she was never able to fully realize her talents and achieve her goals her life serves as a model for many women who came later. She faithfully pursued her goals and tried to achieve success without sacrificing her family or the people she loved. Surely she deserves to be remembered.
This past week the New York Times launched a series paying tribute to fifteen notable women who did not get obituaries in the newspaper when they died. Each week in this new section, called “Overlooked”, the Times will add the stories of women who deserved, but were not given, an obituary when they died.
What a great idea! I thought when I read the announcement. I decided I would go back and take a look at some of the women I’ve written about on my blog to see whether they fit into the “Overlooked” category. One of the first people I thought of was Elizabeth Peabody, a celebrity during much of the 19th century, who has long been forgotten
Bookstore discussions
despite her achievements in education and publishing. As it turns out, she did get an obit in the New York Times, when she died in 1894, although she was treated more as an eccentric old woman than as the respected educator that she was. I think she deserves a better send off than that.
We have no picture of Elizabeth Peabody as a young woman, although she was well-known in Boston. As her biographer, Megan Marshall, explains, Elizabeth’s portrait was painted in 1828 by Chester Harding, a well-known portrait artist in Boston. Elizabeth was 24 years old at the time and teaching at a school she had started for girls. Instead of being pleased by the portrait, her parents were scandalized. Women of that time did not have pictures of themselves mounted on walls and displayed to others. Unlike men, women were supposed to live lives that were private and hidden from everyone except their families. Despite the prevailing customs, however, Elizabeth was destined to become a well-known figure in Boston and elsewhere during her long life. The portrait, incidentally, was destroyed years later in a warehouse fire so the only existing pictures show Elizabeth as an elderly woman.
Elizabeth was one of three Peabody sisters—the other two were Mary, who married
Elizabeth Peabody
Horace Mann, and Sophia, who became the wife of Nathaniel Hawthorne. All three were born in the early 1800s and lived through most of that eventful century, but Elizabeth had the most lasting influence and left a legacy that is still with us.
In 1838 Elizabeth opened a small circulating library and bookstore in the family home. She knew Ralph Waldo Emerson and many of his friends who were interested in expanding the intellectual horizons of Americans. They were eager to learn about the new ideas being talked about in Europe and Elizabeth’s bookstore offered them a chance to read and discuss European journals and new books. Not only that, Elizabeth also opened a small publishing operation and published several articles and books written by members of the group including several of Nathanial Hawthorne’s early stories.
Elizabeth Peabody’s small bookstore in West Street was the place where the new Transcendental Club held meetings. Margaret Fuller offered her “Conversations” in the bookstore for the wives and friends of the Emerson circle. Elizabeth’s bookstore appears in my mystery story A Death in Utopia as a place where the Charlotte Edgerton and her friend Daniel Gallagher can follow up ideas for solving a mysterious death.
Running a bookstore and being a publisher were not Elizabeth Peabody’s only occupations. She studied European educational theories and opened the first kindergarten in America. Her most lasting legacy remains the revolution in teaching young children which grew out of the kindergarten movement. She deserves more than the meager obituary written for her when she died in 1894. Megan Marshall’s biography The Peabody Sisters; Three Women Who Ignited American Romanticism gives a good start on learning about Elizabeth and her accomplished sisters.
We have heard far too much about guns this week and the discussions are likely to continue. The question of who should have guns and where and when they should be allowed will continue because it is of vital importance to all of us. But not everyone realizes how unusual the American attitude toward guns is compared with attitudes in most other countries.
Early guns were designed for armies fighting to support kings and nobles. Their use was limited to wars. As handguns became easier to use and more available, they were often purchased by wealthy men who used them for hunting, and for protecting themselves and their property against burglars and assassins.
America was different. During the 19th century as Americans pushed westward, guns became the property of many ordinary farmers and hunters. Guns no longer belonged to the aristocracy, but to everyman. Of course it was definitely man—not woman. Guns have always been associated with men, but in the late 19th century the image was shattered by a 15-year-old girl.
The woman we know as Annie Oakley was born Phoebe Ann Mosey on August 13, 1860. She grew up in poverty in Ohio and learned to shoot while she was very young. By the time she was nine or ten years old she was shooting game and selling it to hotels and restaurants in Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio. She made enough money with her sales that she was able to pay off her widowed mother’s mortgage.
As Annie’s shooting skills became more famous, a man who owned a Cincinnati hotel invited her to participate in a shooting contest with a local performer named Frank Butler. At the age of 15, and standing only five feet tall, Annie Oakley was able to win the contest with the well-known marksman. Butler was so impressed by her performance that he began courting her and the couple was married in 1876.
From then on, Annie’s life was in show business. She was a star of the Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show and became the highest paid entertainer in the country. Butler was content to take second billing and to manage her career. The couple travelled throughout the country and to Europe where Annie performed for Queen Victoria.
One of Annie’s greatest interests was in persuading other women to learn to shoot. Almost alone at that time, she believed women should be able to serve in combat for the American army. She wrote a letter to President William McKinley on April 5, 1898, “offering the government the services of a company of 50 ‘lady sharpshooters’ who would provide their own arms and ammunition should the U.S. go to war with Spain”. Her offer was turned down and women did not serve in either the Spanish-American War or World War I.
Annie Oakley died in 1926, so she did not live to see women serving in combat. That was left for later generations. Today thousands of women learn to handle guns and to shoot, although even now guns are far more often associated with men than with women.
None of the shooting sprees that have led to mass killings in the United States were carried out by women. Why is that? Despite the importance of understanding why some people use guns in violent attacks, most researchers are forbidden to investigate the issue. In 1996, Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.” That action has meant that researchers find it almost impossible to get grants for research.
Annie Oakley believed in guns as a force for good in the country, not for evil. She would be ashamed to discover that we have become too timid to even try to find out how people use the weapon that she mastered so well.
The dazzling display that marks the beginning of the Olympic games whenever they are played has become traditional. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people around the world watch on TV screens, tablets or phones to see the athletes march into a massive stadium carrying the flag of their country. It’s a once-in-a-lifetime-moment for the athletes. But the Olympics were not always such a high profile occasion. The first American woman to win an Olympic event won it in a contest that was so low key she wasn’t even sure that the golf game she won was part of the Olympics.
There was no ceremony to mark the opening of the Paris Olympics of 1900. There was no closing ceremony either and the winners did not receive medals—they received one of a variety of knick-knacks provided by the sponsors.
How is that possible? Well, the 1900 Olympics in Paris were only the second in the series of modern Olympics, which had started in Athens in 1896. When 1900 rolled around, Paris was holding a large World Exhibit and the Olympics became a kind of sideshow to that. Various events were run from May until October in different venues around Paris. Spectators and even participants were not always sure which events were part of the Olympics and which were unaffiliated athletic contests. The event was quite disorganized, but one innovation that was made has lasted—it was the first time that women were allowed to compete in the Olympics. Women have been a prominent part of the Olympic contests ever since.
America’s first female Olympic champion was Margaret Ives Abbott. She was a young society woman from Chicago who played golf for pleasure and was very good at it. In
Margaret Ives Abbott
1900, she was in Paris studying art and heard there was a golf contest, so she signed up. Her mother, also an excellent golfer, participated in the contest too. 1900 was the first year that golf had been part of the Olympic program and for many years it was the only time. Not until 2006 was golf reintroduced as an Olympic sport.
Margaret won first place in the golf tournament and was given a porcelain bowl in recognition of her achievement. But there was no huge newspaper coverage, probably no photos, and certainly none of the adulation that Olympic champions win today. Margaret Abbott, who was 22 years old at the time she won her award, continued to live the normal life of a prosperous young woman. She married the journalist and author, Finley Peter Dunne in 1902. He was creator of the well-known “Mr. Dooley” essays, humorous commentary on politics and life of the early 20th century.
It wasn’t until almost fifty years later when scholars put together a reliable history of the Olympics that the Paris 1900 games were fully recognized. And Margaret Ives Abbott finally received full recognition. Because she died in 1955, it seems unlikely she was even aware that she was America’s first woman Olympic winner. Such a mistake would never happen today when all the events are filmed and a full historical record kept of the games. Women who win medals get full recognition of their achievements. The Olympic games have come a long way—and so have women athletes. But let’s not forget to honor Margaret Ives Abbott, a leader in the recognition of women athletes.
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.—Mark Twain
Despite Mark Twain’s excellent advice, a lot of people back in his day—like many people today—did vegetate in one little corner of the earth for their entire life. Of course the majority of people have never had a choice. To travel comfortably is a luxury reserved for prosperous people, but even among them, many people don’t take advantage of the opportunity. Fewer than half of all Americans have a passport.
Traditionally men have traveled while women stayed at home, but there have always been women who insisted on travelling just as their brothers and husbands did. One of the most notable woman travelers of the 19th century was Gertrude Bell. She traveled and learned about other cultures, studied languages, and had a major influence on the course of history.
Gertrude Bell was born into a wealthy family in County Durham, England, in 1868. Her mother died when she was very young, but her father soon remarried and her stepmother, Florence Bell, was a strong influence on the girl. She even decided, eventually, that Gertrude was too restless and intelligent to be decorously educated at home as other girls were. She was sent to school and even attended a women’s college in Oxford where she was the first woman ever to receive a first in history. She was not, however, awarded a degree for that because women might study and excel in learning, but it was feared that an actual degree was a step too far.
Gertrude’s father supported her desire to travel and her interest in archeology and
Gertrude Bell
supplied a generous allowance that made it possible for her to travel the world. She fell in love with the Middle East and spent much of her life there, learning languages, studying ruins, and getting to know the rulers and their wives. Despite looking like a staid Victorian schoolteacher, Bell was a fearless traveler.
In 1911, when Winston Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, the British Navy replaced coal fired ships with oil powered ones. Suddenly England became dependent on oil from the Middle East and the exotic countries where it was produced. Access to the oil was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, which encompassed most of Mesopotamia, and the Turks were allies of the Germans.
British intelligence was very interested in what was going on in the Middle East and because Gertrude was recognized as an expert, she was summoned to Cairo to help map the area. Given the rank of Major—the first woman officer in the history of British intelligence—she caused consternation among other officers who couldn’t figure out how to treat her. But she managed build a comfortable relationship with the men, and she played a vital role in establishing the governments that ruled the Middle East for decades after the war.
Iraq was the country that was closest to her heart. While she was there she oversaw the establishment of the great National Museum to house antiquities of the country. She also started the library, which became the National Library of Iraq.
There have been many questions raised about the role Bell played in establishing borders for countries that no Westerner truly understood. She was not always right in her advice, but she respected the people and, unlike most of the English, she foresaw many of the difficulties that would arise. Perhaps before any of us make judgments about Bell’s work we should read the biography written by Georgina Howell, Gertrude Bell: Queen of the Desert, Shaper of Nations.
Now that we have so many ways of getting to know the world, maybe in 2018 more people can travel whether in person, by reading, or through the Internet. And remember the words of Confucius “Wherever you go, go with all your heart.”