#ireland was the first proper british colony

[whetstonefires]

it's been most of a year and i'm still unable to get past the weirdness of how The Raven Boys books ended.

it's not that it was a weak ending; those are common and it could have been worse, and the prose remained strong enough to almost get away with it. landing a novel series is tough. it was an extremely ambitious project to begin with. that's fine.

what i'm stuck on is how the way it was weak seemed so avoidable. there were all these really excellent themes built up in the intersection between Ganzey's quest and the other main characters' issues, and the magical drama, and the in-depth portrait of White People of Western Virginia that filled out so much of the first few books. there was a lot to work with! it was all making a visible effort to come together!

and all of it was dropped to wander off at a right angle and attempt to replace actual thematic resolution with last-minute high drama, a gay B-ship, and the divine right of kings.

Glyndwr isn't important because he was a king. there have been so many kings. and the highest rank he ever formally claimed was prince, and that was from an angle of aspiring to reconstruct a principality rather than receiving one intact. Glyndwr lingers as a narrative--was reconstructed as a narrative by 19th century nationalists--because he was the last. long after the last, really. he never truly reigned. he was a rebel. he led a revolt on the strength of his distant ties to a fallen throne. his fight started with a spat with his neighbor spiraling wildly out of control but became a large-scale uprising for Welsh independence.

he was metaphorically entombed with hope on his breast because his people were conquered by the English.

how do you put that person at 300% mythic capacity in fucking Virginia, ground zero of the English conquest of north america, make Virginia practically a main character it's so luxuriously present and linger on The Importance of Being A WASP (In Modern Virginia) and then just. absolutely refuse to engage with the existence of English colonialism despite every aspect of your narrative being conspicuously drenched in its legacy??

like. i own that i initially mistook the textual avoidance of the subject of the English following after Glyndwr 200 years later along the same path to shatter another nation there as setup for Ganzey's belated realization that

in all his frenetic compiling of every possible resource

it never fucking occurred to him to ask the still-extant tribes of what was once the Powhatan Confederacy if they had any oral history about such a bizarre fucking event as "a weird foreign boat comes in and then the people on the boat walk a hundred miles inland in an obsessively straight line ignoring or destroying all terrain obstacles, carrying a bier." because he'd been raised to think about pre-colonial Virginia in such a way that 'i wonder if anyone noticed Glyndwr's funeral procession' just. never came into his head.

i thought that was why the book was following his lead of treating 15th century Virginia as uninhabited! to set up that breakthrough, and the way it would tie into the major early theme of the flaws and blindnesses his being from a Best Family had put into him.

and then it wasn't.

so like. maybe stiefvater just sincerely shares Ganzey's hugenormous blind spots, despite the hugenormousness of them being such a major part of his explicit character?

but at the same time, Calla's last-minute absence from the ending of Blue Lily, Lily Blue after all the foreshadowing throughout the book from title onward suggested she would be central to the resolution was about the point at which threads really started visibly being dropped, and not picked up again.

(the point from which things started going downhill and never recovered was, in retrospect, after they got the mad tree witch out of the false tomb and then the story didn't actually know what to do with her, but the fact that there was no point to this character after the initial shock of her wasn't clear until things actually wrapped up and there hadn't been, while Calla's abrupt last-minute siloing to the car with the fake person was obvious as soon as it occurred.)

and having the whole narrative start to decay from around the point that the single black character in the whole story is conspicuously and inexplicably sidelined tends to suggest to me that there was a conscious choice to skirt a certain type of Controversy going on here, at the cost of authenticity, to the detriment of the entire enterprise.

which would make the series an object lesson to writers.

which is why it keeps returning to my mind.

[dwellordream]

“Certain characteristics of the new nation had important consequences for how children and parents treated each other, as well as for politics and economics. The American Constitution had made no provisions for political parties of the kind that brought Jefferson to office peacefully in 1801. But it did foresee the immense expansion of the economy and the possibilities for territorial growth that defined the United States during its first century of existence. A limited population, largely hovering along the Atlantic coast, exploded in size and in ambition after the Constitution took effect in 1789. New territories, resulting from treaties, purchase, and conquest, brought the United States to the limits of its contiguous continental expanse by the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Alaska would be added during the war).

Rural expansion and a vigorous and voraciously expanding farming population that spread onto the rapidly acquired new territory meant that there was always more work to do than workers available to do it. This gave young people opportunities to test their independence. But working on the land was not the only option. Young people began also to look to new industrial production as manufacturing and the factory system expanded choices for young laborers in towns and cities on the East Coast. Even young women were rapidly absorbed into these new occupations. Despite the existence of poverty and inequality, the United States opened doors for young workers from among its own people and from abroad, tantalizing and welcoming immigrants from countries such as Germany, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, and the rest of the British Isles.

Catherine Beecher, an educator, pioneer in ideas about household efficiency, daughter of an influential preacher, and sister of the famous novelist, described the buzzing and humming consequences. “Everything is moving and changing. Persons in poverty, are rising to opulence, and persons of wealth are sinking to poverty. The children of common laborers, by their talents and enterprise, are becoming nobles in intellect, or wealth, or station; while the children of the wealthy, enervated by indulgence, are sinking to humbler stations.” It is worth noting that even in this early period, some Americans were concerned about “indulgence” and its baneful effect on children and their future success. Beecher was concerned especially with the “domestic economy,” and she quickly focused on children as the necessary beneficiaries (or victims) of this loosened social system. 

The uncertainties of station were directly influenced by the tumult of the economy. Children could not expect to follow in their fathers’ paths, nor could fathers’ influence be too heavy- handed, if they were not to squash their children’s potentials— or lose their willingness to reside at home. Beecher also recognized the consequences of the labor shortage that defined the times. Her own concern centered on domestic service. “There is such a disproportion between those who wish to hire, and those who are willing to go to domestic service, that . . . were it not for the supply of poverty- stricken foreigners, there would not be one domestic for each family.” 

The absence of adequate domestics and their sloppy service would be a constant plaint of middle- class housewives of the time, whose many duties and many children made some kind of assistance a necessity. The absence of help from a permanently designated servant class would have significance for the kinds of work that the children in the house, even middle- class children, could be expected to perform. This shortage helps to explain why young Henry Clarke Wright, with no sisters available, could be found alongside his stepmother at various domestic tasks. American labor shortages made gender as well as age assignments more fluid in the household. Labor shortages both for in- home tasks and for those on the land and in the factory made youthful work profitable and desirable. 

It also meant that young people would move often from one kind of work to another. Young female school teachers became mill workers when factories opened up in places like Lowell, Lawrence, and Chicopee, Massachusetts. Men became clerks, taught school for a while, and then studied law or medicine. The fluidity of occupations and the scarcity of labor destroyed older apprenticeships, since few people wanted to invest years in such training when work was unstable and new options beckoned. It was a young person’s world— full of opportunities and risks. This economic pattern helped to make young people more independent of their parents. It also gave them a sturdy sense of their ability to take chances and to exercise their judgment. 

Another source for the changes in domestic relations was the nature of American law. Starting early in his career, Thomas Jefferson had actively opposed the kinds of inheritance laws that stymied personal independence and success, laws that maintained family order, hierarchy, and prestige at the cost of the future of children. He was vehement in rejecting primogeniture and entail, two aspects of British property law that put land in permanent and deeply undemocratic patterns of family descent. By the time Jefferson wrote against them in the 1780s, they were fast declining in practice, but he understood how important even lingering remnants of this older landbased family system could be, and he was vociferous in denouncing them where they still applied. 

As one historian of the law has noted, “It is significant that at least one influential Revolutionary American perceived that the logic of republican revolution pointed toward radical reevaluation of the law of inheritance.” By 1800, not only sons but also daughters inherited equally. In the new United States, the traditional obstacles created by laws that governed inheritance and the relationship between parents and children were removed. These impediments had maintained both patriarchy and hierarchical distinctions within the family. Jefferson’s thoughts on this matter appeared in a letter to James Madison in 1789 (at the point that the new constitution was going into effect): “ ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”

For those unfamiliar with the quaint term “usufruct,” it means the fruits of property gained through labor. Jefferson embraced the right of future generations to acquire and work the land equally and to own it in full. The land, for Jefferson, was the basis for all economic prosperity as well as independence; it should not be withdrawn from usage by laws that upheld the rights of past or present generations. Not held hostage to family tradition, or to the laws that supported it, children could venture forth to enjoy the fruits of the new society. To grasp what the new legal regime meant for children in the new nation, it is hardly necessary to cross the Atlantic. 

Even in North America, some of these older patterns persisted— but not in territory contained in the new republic. In Alta California, still under Mexican jurisdiction and Mexican law, land was not divided equally among all children, as the law allowed in the United States. Mexican law still kept land in entail, holding it within the family estate, even after the father’s death. This upheld a vision of the family as an institution with substance and traditions of its own, whose honor and prestige took precedence over the individual needs or desires of its members. Indeed, the power of patriarchy was unchallenged as fathers in Alta California determined whom their children should marry in order to increase family power and prestige, and constrained the choices their sons made about their future occupations.

In fact, wherever the law codes enacted in the Napoleonic period were adopted, they defined the responsibilities of parents and the obligations of children through inheritance, and these laws affected much of Europe and South America. Americans did not attempt to restrain children or impose an older view of the family through inheritance laws. Even children born out of wedlock found conditions much more flexible in the United States as brutal laws (once applied in the American colonies and still potent in other places such as Latin America) were relaxed so that children born outside of marriage could inherit and be recognized by their fathers. 

As one Texas court noted in 1850, “the rights of the children do not depend on the legality or illegality of the marriage of the parents. If there be a crime . . . they are considered unconscious of the guilt, and not the proper subject for the infliction of its retributive consequences.” And Timothy Walker, one of the most significant legal scholars of the first half of the nineteenth century, thought the old common law practices (no longer applied in the United States) in this regard were devoid of “justice and humanity” because “the sins of the parents” were imposed on the “unoffending offspring.”

Law in the United States also had few provisions regarding the specific obligations of children to their parents. Parents were free to use inheritance for their purposes, and children could reject the offer. Walker, who found few laws that obligated children at the time he produced his legal compilation in 1837, was impressed by how much had changed since the colonial period. “From unlimited authority over the person, property, and even life of the child, the parent is now curtailed to a very guarded and qualified authority during the years of minority. And even this authority finds but little aid in the law in case of resistance.” 

Where previously a child “might be whipped if he presumed to strike a parent,” there was no longer any “legal provision for compelling even an affluent child, after majority, to support an indigent parent. . . . [F]ilial, like parental, duty is left as they should be by the legislature to depend upon natural affection.” In the United States, inheritance of land that defined obligations within families and relations between generations were no longer regulated as in the Old World in ways that upheld patriarchal authority and subordinated the children’s future to the will of the family. Outside of the South— where in the nineteenth century the desire to maintain the patriarchal order that underwrote slavery affected laws regarding families and children— American laws did not enforce traditional hierarchical obligations.”

- Paula S. Fass, “Childhood and Parenting in the New Republic: Sowing the Seeds of Independence, 1800–1860.” in The End of American Childhood: A History of Parenting from Life on the Frontier to the Managed Child

[lily-of-the-eyrie]

🎓🔍 Scene Commentary: Colonel Edition ③

Notes for [SQ3-3] Circumstances [video here]. Come join me as we talk about more theories surrounding the Colonel’s manipulation skills, hints about his history before Shay met him, and Gist being charmingly sassy.

Highlights this time include: 　❗️The Colonel's Finances 　❗️Gist and the Colonel

Without further ado, here we go:

[SQ3-3] Circumstances

― Part I: Heading to Albany ― Shay, having retrieved the Morrigan, follows Gist's advice to set sail for Albany, where the Colonel's waiting.

　The Colonel himself isn't present while Shay and Gist are on the way to Albany, but on the flipside, we got this great opportunity to see these two gossiping about the man.

　Gist opens the scene pondering out loud what the Colonel might want them to do next. Now this bit is mildly amusing because he said "I wonder what he has in mind for us to do next"―did Gist just...slip up? Shay naturally went wdym-"us"-👀 at him over here, because he's pretty sure he hasn't signed up to be part of their team...

　Still, Gist doesn't even trip over his words as he follows up with how he's really just all giddy about doing his part in making the Colonel's ideals a reality. Aside from the impressive save he pulls here, another highlight of this section is that Gist frames "the Colonel's ideals" in extremely concrete terms: "secure borders, prosperous farms, fair trade". These are very specific large-scale implementations of the Freedom From Want theme compared to what we heard from the Colonel himself two chapters back, which was more on the philosophical/ideological side.

　Next up, the Morrigan docks at Albany, where the Colonel's waiting. I just have to say that it's incredibly cute of the Colonel to address Shay as "Captain Cormac" following Gist's example after seeing the Morrigan.

　The issue on the table for their meeting this time is the French forces' movements into British territory, which is likely to break out into a full fight between the two kingdoms' armies. Now watch how Shay wound up working with these two again despite the question of him agreeing to run for more of the Colonel's errands was left hanging at the beginning of this scene: the moment the Colonel mentions that "New York could burn" if they don't do anything about the French forces encroaching upon British territory, Shay throws his weight in with them.

　We've already established that Shay's the kind of person who cares about the little guy, so this isn't all that unnatural; especially now that he's a good friend of the Finnegans', not doing anything when New York's at risk is going to sound unreasonable to him.

　However, the audience isn't the only one who understands this―at this point, so does the Colonel. After what happened at the Greenwich gang HQ and Fort Arsenal, he knows for a fact that Shay isn't going to turn his back on a chance to save innocent people. Did he, then, strategically bait Shay by presenting the fact that New York is in terrible danger and joining him is the best way to save all those townspeople? Or was it just something he said because he's also the kind of guy who's concerned for the safety of New York etc., and by saying this he's also trying to communicate to Shay that their goals are aligned? The trick to this is that of course these two possibilities don't have to be mutually exclusive―I'd say the Colonel feels that he knows Shay well enough at this point that he'd want to both get Shay to help him out while also letting him pursue what seems to be his calling.

― Part II: Gathering Supplies ― Shay and Gist, having reunited with the Colonel, head to a nearby French outpost to gather supplies and thwart French expansion into the River Valley.

　In order to dislodge the invading French forces, Gist then suggests that they raid a nearby French outpost for supplies. The trio covers a range of interesting topics during their time sailing to that outpost, chief among which is Shay's skepticism towards the Colonel's intentions behind all his seemingly charitable actions. This is an important bit for two reasons:

(1) Despite all they've done together so far, Shay doesn't stop questioning Monro. He's cooperative with the Colonel, sure, but just because he kinda sorta trusts that he's not a bad guy right now, that doesn't mean he's going to do whatever he says until he gets to the bottom of why he does it.

(2) The Colonel, again, calmly faces off against Shay's doubt by being straight with what he wants: that the colonies become "a place of safety, development, and purpose". Now this is something literally every one of us recognizes as a Templar Line™, even if Shay might not (did he? Hmmm). In any case, the most important takeaway here is that it strongly links the Colonel's concern for the common man with core Templar tenets, giving us a clear look into his personal take on how the Order's beliefs were meant to be applied to the world. He's not part-timing “being a Templar” half the time and “being a benevolent authority figure” in the other half, those two things are one and the same for him.

　On a random note: I’m just gonna mention here that Gist being cheeky as hell with the Colonel's noble "money is only a means to an end" talk in this bit is hands down my favourite part of this scene.

❗️The Colonel's Finances

　On a more serious note, the Colonel's comment on how he's "not a rich man" did get me wondering about his financial situation... I mean, obviously he's not dirt poor, and while there's that idea that Templars tend to be loaded, he doesn't look like he's just rolling in gold, either.

　Realistically speaking, being a military officer in the early 18th century can be a rather pricey career―the pay's far from great, and with all the spending for supplies and equipments, it can be quite a while until even the officers could expect to turn a profit from their job (one exhaustive source about the economics of the 18th c. British Army I’ve read pegged it at around the time they get promoted to Captain). And while the Colonel did come from what you might call a respectable family, it’s more of a modest than aristocratic one.

　However, assuming he's a long-time player in the field of renovating cities, a.k.a. the sidequest that, in the long run, gives you way more money than you know what to do with in Rogue, I guess his finances are quite stable. Now the question is, how much of those renovating gains he put back into more renovating... 😂

― Part III: Taking Down the French Fort ― Having obtained their supplies, Shay & co. sail the upgraded Morrigan to the French fort and take it down.

　With the party ready to take on the French fort, we see the Colonel show a pacifist streak as he reins in Gist, who was being a little too excited about the prospect of throwing fists with the French. Really, these two have such amusing interactions.

　Next, he shows a strategic side as he agrees with Shay's suggestion about taking out the fort's commander to force the French to surrender; he may not be against pitching a battle when necessary, but he also seems to be a big fan of minimizing the overall casualties.

　One really paltry but personally highly interesting thing I picked up in this scene is how the Colonel, commenting on how the French soldiers in the fort would put on an aggressive defense under pressure, said they'd just "dig in like a wounded bear", which does sound like an uncommon expression... I mean, "like a wounded animal" is something anyone can say, but him specifying "bear" over there just makes it sound like he'd gone up against one himself before. Considering he’d likely not have met a bear before he got to the colonies (bears had been extinct a long time in Britain and Ireland), if he did have a bear encounter, it must’ve been after 1750... Did you get chased around by this fuzzy creature in the frontier's wilderness at some point before you settled down in New York, Colonel? 😂

❗️Gist and the Colonel

　Since the amount of interaction the Colonel has with Gist is second only to his interactions with Shay, analyzing how things are between these two can tell us quite a lot about the Colonel's personality.  

　First, it's obvious that these two are close friends―the kind of relaxed bantering they have on board the Morrigan sounds pretty much on par with what Shay's got going on with Liam, which isn't all that surprising considering Gist and the Colonel had known each other (and presumably worked together) for 6 years at this point.

　Still, while the Colonel may be the older and higher-ranking of the two (ie.-He is Gist’s senior in both the military sense and the Templar one), therefore putting a clear superior-subordinate dynamic at play here, you don't see the Colonel trying to roast his colleague for stepping out of line (which he clearly does all the time, judging by his behaviour in this chapter), and what he does when Gist gets a little too rowdy is to gently but firmly prod him back onto the proper path. Maybe it's just his brand of leadership, but he displays similar tendencies when dealing with Shay, who has his default setting set to "unruly" most of the time. He’s clearly skilled at handling people much more hot-blooded than himself, and has a good hang of how to be an authority figure while still standing on the ground with his subordinates instead of putting himself on some distant, overbearing pedestal—honestly, a pretty good way to end up with their respect and loyalty.

　Another highlight is Gist's adoration of the Colonel's ideals. Now I think we all know that the Colonel's utopian take on Templar ideals is one of his greatest charms, but what I'd want to bring up here is the fact that, if Shay followed the Colonel because he was inspired by the man's idea of making a better world, he wouldn't have been the first―Gist had been there before, citing how he used to wonder if he’s doing the right thing, but “not since [he] met the Colonel” . I'm not saying that the Colonel's deliberately going out there to steal people's hearts with his brand of Templar beliefs, but judging from his success at inspiring Gist (and presumably Finnegan Jr.) into joining his fight, his winning Shay over to his side isn't a one-off thing.

[zooterchet]

Clan MacBeth (Arab-Greek Medicine)

Clan MacBeth, had a particular medical trade in the British Isles and France, wherein they would function as a doctor with a leather satchel, a bottle of whiskey, a buck knife, and a matchlock.

They would enforce medical codes, wherein only a woman, could be a pharmacist (an apothecary), men placing ego into the work of selling opium to smoke, to ease pain.

The philosophy of Clan MacBeth’s practice of medicine, was that any injury, could not be treated, hence seeking a doctor, was an act of accounting in fatality of force.  Anyone practicing medicine, was taken to a doctor, and any male pharmacist, was murdered, with knife and matchlock, whiskey consumed after.

At the time, it was a rare trade, bound to bloodlines like Hippocrates, Avicenna, and Verrigoes.

However, William Shakespeare, the pen alias for Ottoman highblood of London, William Wallace, combined with Longshanks’s line, desired the role to be duplicated, to make the medicine more efficient and widespread, favoring the Bruce’s style of Kurdish marijuana dealing medicine.  Elizabeth I, the first Queen of England, and the founder of the Anglican Church, upon which relied the Globe Theater’s testaments to teach Groundlings to be Gentry, a new class of Noble for merchantry (prior restricted in the Catholic Church, to families with a purchased bishop, archbishop, cardinal, or papal title in the family, held for remainder of life of descendents, repurchased into the Church at any time).

The idea, was to outmaneuver a superior base of agriculture, the Continent, using Ireland and England’s scant resources, for an advantage, art being the Ottoman system of transmitting a professional or career role, when on Ottoman performed the scribe, in their particular manner (male actors, children as crossdressers to perform female roles and then rise into ranks of “villains”, lawyers and magistrates, and “thespians”, writer assassins, to do field research).

The basis of Puck, Romeo, and MacBeth, was the doctor chosen, Puc Lascerdes, and he took up his leather handbag, his traveling satchel, and performed the research for each play, then establishing inside the Globe Theater, whose descent would be the mercantile houses of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, and Paris, as well as the Canadian and American Colonies, eventually the whole world; the Turkish concept of conquest, fielded through art mimicking the work in question, through the death of the “Witch”, Othello, those applying fictional works derived from the already existing formulas, to produce more; the proper choice, to become a Gentry, a man or woman of status, being to comprehend, not to apply, any literature, using theory, not application, of art.

Being a member of Clan MacBeth, and having created the concept of the fatality of medicine, you owe me everything for your modern clinical system; the concept of art, making you seek a medic, to die happily, on opium, and perhaps, should you wish to practice medicine yourself and drink whiskey (particularly Arab whiskey, Jim Beam), you can see a doctor too.

[blackkudos]

Ira Aldridge

Ira Frederick Aldridge (July 24, 1807 – August 7, 1867) was an American and later British stage actor and playwright who made his career after 1824 largely on the London stage and in Europe, especially in Shakespearean roles. Born in New York City, Aldridge is the only actor of African-American descent among the 33 actors of the English stage honored with bronze plaques at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon. He was especially popular in Prussia and Russia, where he received top honors from heads of state.

He was married twice, once to an Englishwoman, once to a Swedish woman, and had a family in England. Two of his daughters became professional opera singers.

Early life and career

Aldridge was born in New York City to Reverend Daniel and Luranah Aldridge on July 24, 1807. At age 13, Aldridge went to the African Free School in New York City, established by the New York Manumission Society for the children of free black people and slaves. They were given a classical education, with the study of English grammar, writing, mathematics, geography, and astronomy. His classmates at the African free school included Charles L. Reason, George T. Downing, and Henry Highland Garnet. His early exposure to theater included viewing plays from the high balcony of the Park Theatre, New York's leading theater of the time, and seeing productions of Shakespeare's plays at the African Grove Theatre.

Aldridge's first professional acting experience was in the early 1820s with the African Company, a group founded and managed by William Henry Brown and James Hewlett. In 1821, the group built the African Grove Theatre, the first resident African-American theatre in the United States.

Aldridge made his acting debut as Rolla, a Peruvian character in Richard Brinsley Sheridan's Pizarro. He may have also played the male lead in Romeo and Juliet, as reported later in an 1860 memoir by his schoolfellow, Dr. James McCune Smith.

Confronted with the persistent discrimination which black actors had to endure in the United States, Aldridge emigrated to Liverpool, England, in 1824 with actor James Wallack. During this time the Industrial Revolution had begun, bringing about radical economic change that helped expand the development of theatres. The British Parliament had already outlawed the slave trade and was moving toward abolishing slavery in the British colonies, which increased the prospect of black actors being able to perform.

Having limited onstage experience and lacking name recognition, Aldridge concocted a story of his African lineage, claiming to have descended from the Fulani princely line. By 1831 he had taken the name of Keene, a homonym for the then popular British actor, Edmund Kean. Aldridge observed a common theatrical practice of assuming an identical or similar nomenclature to that of a celebrity in order to garner attention. In addition to being called F.W. Keene Aldridge, he would later be called African Roscius, after the famous Roman actor of the first century BCE.

On October 10, 1825, Aldridge made his European debut at London's Royal Coburg Theatre, the first African-American actor to establish himself professionally in a foreign country. He played the lead role of Oroonoko in The Revolt of Surinam, or A Slave's Revenge; this play was an adaptation of Thomas Southerne's Oroonoko (itself adapted from Aphra Behn's original work).

According to the scholar Shane White, English people had heard of the African Theatre because of British actor and comedian Charles Mathews, so Aldridge associated himself with that. Bernth Lindfors says:

[W]hen Aldridge starts appearing on the stage at the Royalty Theatre, he's just called a gentleman of color. But when he moves over to the Royal Coburg, he's advertised in the first playbill as the American Tragedian from the African Theater New York City. The second playbill refers to him as 'The African Tragedian'. So everybody goes to the theater expecting to laugh because this is the man they think Mathews saw in New York City.

An innovation Aldridge introduced early in his career was a direct address to the audience on the closing night of his engagement at a given theatre. Especially in the years leading up to the emancipation of all slaves in the British colonies in 1832, he would speak of the injustice of slavery and the passionate desire for freedom of those held in bondage.

Critique

During Aldridge's seven-week engagement at the Royal Coburg, the young actor starred in five plays. He earned admiration from his audiences while most critics emphasized Aldridge's lack of stage training and experience. According to modern critics Errol Hill and James Vernon Hatch, early reviews were mixed. For The Times he was "baker-kneed and narrow-chested with lips so shaped that it is utterly impossible for him to pronounce English"; the Globe found his conception of Oroonoko to be very judicious and his enunciation distinct and sonorous; and The Drama described him as "tall and tolerably well proportioned with a weak voice that gabbles apace."

Aldridge performed scenes from Othello that impressed reviewers. One critic wrote, "In Othello (Aldridge) delivers the most difficult passages with a degree of correctness that surprises the beholder." He gradually progressed to larger roles; by 1825, he had top billing at London's Coburg Theatre as Oronoko in A Slave's Revenge, soon to be followed by the role of Gambia in The Slave, and the title role of Shakespeare's Othello. He also played major roles in plays such as The Castle Spectre and The Padlock. In search of new and suitable material, Aldridge also appeared occasionally as white European characters, for which he would be appropriately made up with greasepaint and wig. Examples of these are Captain Dirk Hatteraick and Bertram in Rev. R. C. Maturin's Bertram, the title role in Shakespeare's Richard III, and Shylock in The Merchant of Venice.

Touring and later years

In 1831 Aldridge successfully played in Dublin; at several locations in southern Ireland, where he created a sensation in the small towns; as well as in Bath and Edinburgh, Scotland. The actor Edmund Kean praised his Othello; some took him to task for taking liberties with the text, while others attacked his race. Since he was an American black actor from the African Theatre, The Times called him the "African Roscius", after the famed actor of ancient Rome. Aldridge used this to his benefit and expanded African references in his biography that appeared in playbills. In June 1844 he made appearances on stage in Exmouth (Devon, England).

Aldridge first toured to continental Europe in 1852, with successes in Germany, where he was presented to the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and performed for Frederick William IV of Prussia; he also performed in Budapest. An 1858 tour took him to Serbia and to Imperial Russia, where he became acquainted with Count Fyodor Tolstoy, Mikhail Shchepkin and the Ukrainian poet and artist Taras Shevchenko, who did his portrait in pastel.

Now of an appropriate age, about this time, he played the title role of King Lear (in England) for the first time. He purchased some property in England, toured Russia again (1862), and applied for British citizenship (1863).

Marriage and family

Soon after going to England, in 1824 Aldridge married Margaret Gill, an English woman. They were married for 40 years until her death in 1864.

Aldridge's first son, Ira Daniel, was born in May 1847. The identity of his mother is unknown, but it could not have been Margaret Aldridge, who was 49 years old and had been in ill health for years. She raised Ira Daniel as her own; they shared a loving relationship until her death. He emigrated to Australia in February 1867.

A year after Margaret's death, on April 20, 1865, Aldridge married his mistress, the self-styled Swedish countess Amanda von Brandt (1834-1915). They had four children: Irene Luranah, Ira Frederick and Amanda Aldridge, who all went on to musical careers, the two girls as opera singers. Their daughter Rachael Frederica was born shortly after Aldridge's death and died in infancy. Brandt died in 1915 and is buried at Highgate Woods, London.

Aldridge spent most of his final years with his family in Russia and continental Europe, interspersed with occasional visits to England. He planned to return to the post-Civil-War United States, but he died in August 1867 while visiting Łódź, Poland.

His remains were buried in the city's Evangelical Cemetery; 23 years passed before a proper tombstone was erected. His grave is tended by the Society of Polish Artists of Film and Theatre.

A half-length portrait of 1826 by James Northcote shows Aldridge dressed for the role of Othello, but in a relatively undramatic portrait pose, is on display at the Manchester Art Gallery (in the Manchester section). Aldridge performed in the city many times. A blue plaque unveiled in 2007 commemorates Aldridge at 5 Hamlet Road in Upper Norwood, London. The plaque describes him as the 'African Roscius'.

Ira Aldridge Troupe

Aldridge enjoyed enormous fame as a tragic actor during his lifetime, but after his death, he was soon forgotten [in Europe]. The news of Ira Aldridge's death in Poland and the record of his achievement as an actor reached the American black community slowly. In African-American circles, Aldridge was a legendary figure. Many black actors viewed him as an inspirational model, so when his death was revealed, several amateur groups sought to honor his memory by adopting his name for their companies.

Many troupes were being founded in various places around America. In the late nineteenth century Aldridge-titled troupes were established in Washington, DC, in Philadelphia, and in New Haven, their respective productions at the time being an adaptation of Kotzebue's Die Spanier in Peru by Sheridan as Pizarro in 1883, School by Thomas William Robertson in 1885, and George Melville Baker's Comrades in 1889.

The most prominent troupe named for him was the Ira Aldridge Troupe in Philadelphia, founded in 1863, some 35 years after Aldridge left the US for good. The Ira Aldridge Troupe was a minstrelsy group that caricatured Irish white men. The Ira Aldridge Troupe is unique in annals of minstrelsy; it was named for a Black actor who had left his homeland some 35 years before and achieved fame in Europe. Unlike most, later, Black minstrel companies, the Aldridge Troupe apparently did not do plantation material, although they were billed as a 'contraband troupe'—that is, fugitive slaves. Perhaps because of their substantially Black audience, the troupe felt no need to "put on the mask." Although much of the material the group performed was standard fare, several of the company's acts were downright subversive.

The Ira Aldridge Troupe appearing during the American Civil War made it "unique in the annals of minstrelsy." The Clipper (New York City) thought it was important enough to review; and it performed before a mixed audience, at a time when often white and black audiences were separated. Third, it was a black troupe presenting a program designed to appeal to their black audience. The Ira Aldridge Troupe performances eschewed the southern genre of old "darkies" longing for the plantation. The exclusion of southern nostalgia may have been in deference to a majority-black audience. The New York Clipper reported them as "A more incorrigible set of cusses we never saw; they beat our Bowery gods all to pieces."

The troupe also created performances and songs that referred to the continuing Civil War. A ballad, "When the Cruel War is Over", became well known; it was performed by three members of the troupe—Miss S. Burton, Miss R. Clark, and Mr. C. Nixon. The song sold over a million copies of sheet music and was one of the most popular sentimental songs of the Civil War. The song describes a soldier's farewell to his lady, the wounds he receives in battle, and his dying request for a last caress. The song, highly popular with white minstrel groups, was an example of the change in white minstrelsy that had been occurring at this time.)

Another popular production was a farce called The Irishman and the Stranger, with a Mr. Brown playing a character called Pat O'Callahan and a Mr. Jones playing the Stranger. This farce displayed black actors in white face speaking in a "nigger accent". The Clipper reporter referred to the performance as a "truly laughable affair, the 'Irish nagur' mixing up a rich Irish brogue promiscuously with the sweet nigger accent". Perhaps the Aldridge Troupe's audience got its biggest satisfaction, however, from the role reversal inherent in the piece: since the beginning of minstrelsy, minstrels of Irish heritage, such as Dan Bryant and Richard Hooley, had been caricaturing Black men—now it was the turn of Black men to caricature the Irish.

The history of minstrelsy also shows the cross-cultural influences, with Whites adopting elements of Black culture. The Ira Aldridge Troupe tried to pirate that piracy, and, in collaboration with its audience, turn minstrelsy to its own ends.

Aldridge family

Ira Daniel Aldridge, 1847–?. Teacher. Migrated to Australia in 1867.

Irene Luranah Pauline Aldridge, 1860–1932. Opera singer.

Ira Frederick Olaff Aldridge, 1862–?. Musician and composer.

Amanda Christina Elizabeth Aldridge (Amanda Ira Aldridge), 1866–1956. Opera singer, teacher and composer under name of Montague Ring.

Rachael Margaret Frederika Aldridge, 1867, died in infancy.

Legacy and honors

Aldridge received awards for his art from European heads of state and governments: the Prussian Gold Medal for Arts and Sciences from King Frederick William III, the Golden Cross of Leopold from the Czar of Russia, and the Maltese Cross from Bern, Switzerland.

Aldridge is the only African American to have a bronze plaque among the 33 actors honored at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon.

Aldridge's legacy inspired the dramatic writing of African-American playwright Henry Francis Downing, who in the early 20th century became "probably the first person of African descent to have a play of his or her own written and published in Britain."

In 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante listed Ira Aldridge in his 100 Greatest African Americans.

His life was the subject of a play, Red Velvet, by Lolita Chakrabarti and starring Adrian Lester, produced at the Tricycle Theatre in London in 2012.

Howard University Department of Theatre Arts, a historically black university in Washington, DC, has a theatre named after Ira Aldridge.

Aldridge's Othello has been highly influential in starting a series of respected performances by African Americans in Othello in the 1800s and early 1900s which includes: John A. Arneaux, John Hewlett, and Paul Robeson.

The Black Doctor (1847)

The Black Doctor, originally written in French by Auguste Anicet-Bourgeois, was adapted by Aldridge for the English stage. The Black Doctor is a romantic play about Fabian, a bi-racial physician, and his patient Pauline, the daughter of a French aristocrat. The couple falls in love and marries in secret. Although the play depicts racial and family conflict, and ends with Fabian's death, Aldridge portrays his title character with dignity. Some plot points mirror Aldridge's own life, as he married a white Englishwoman.

Wikipedia

[melitaafterfeather]

Brexit the end of negotiation. 🇬🇧

Brexit just happened in a period of when way too many bad presidents lead at the same time not just in EU elsewhere, so they don't look as bad in isolation.

France should not shift immigrants to Britain but back where they originate.

Anyhow,I do not work for Brexit due private unresolved financial issues.

My openion is in contrast to the openion of EU where I do not belong technically as I am British reside in England.

Remeiners British who favour EU because of wealth crimes laundering money should be prosecuted anyway in Britain.

I can't write because I have no residential conditions to do anything properly.

EU wants to reside in Britain so as Catholics while I do not permit such residency on a basis of free trade because it won't be fair to the rest of the citizens from the other parts of the world.

English royals have fans in EU I cannot help them settle just in Britain.

Royals should only consider British citizens as royal supporters.

I don't see how Russians got involved in Britain how commonwealth got involved into my financial world uninvited.

The houses in England belong to England. Residential status of EU citizens and unregistered citizens should be death with by Home Office. We need English ministers in Home Office to be tough on illegal immigration as foreign immigrant cannot be a minister of immigration by any chance.

First things must settle in Britain then we can correct difficulties around Brexit financial dispute and residential matter.

Malta was English colony lost to EU. I wouldn't like more losses if territory unlaful occupied properties and unlawful immigration caused by EU.

It won't be Ireland because they must unsubscribe from EU membership.

People and politicians and royals must comprehend after divorce to a big union the laws and protocols aren't the same.

British constitution must confirm each part as directed in the contents of British exit.

If you do not like me refund pay and find another victim to do it for you.

I no longer provide support to entertainment industries while main core industries British farming suffer from ignorance.

Self contented lifestyle not in my own British proper.

Passport relate to one person there is no collective union passport.

The court and the banks will be issued with last offer to end the arbitration process because I won't be dealing with people on the street. I can only sell what's registered as my property. I am allocating a person to deal with purchese vendor assets. I am not in a position to do so. Thank you.

coinsolution33@gmail.com

🤺🇬🇧

[freenewstoday]

New Post has been published on https://freenews.today/2021/04/17/irish-president-sparks-bitter-twitter-war-after-lowering-flag-in-honour-of-british-prince-philip/

Irish president sparks bitter Twitter war after lowering flag in honour of British Prince Philip

Ireland’s president has lowered the country’s flag to half mast to mark the funeral of British Prince Philip, a move that angered nationalist-minded Irish who were quick to remind about 800 years of British conquest of the island.

As Philip was laid to rest in Windsor on Saturday, Irish President Michael D. Higgins ordered the Irish tricolour lowered to half-mast above his offices at Áras an Uachtaráin in Dublin’s Phoenix Park.

Higgins was the first Irish president to host a visit from a British monarch since independence, welcoming Philip and Queen Elizabeth II to Dublin in 2013. That visit was controversial and took place under heightened security measures – and the lowering of the flag has too quickly stirred consternation online.

Irish nationalists decried the gesture, with one wondering “if the President of Ireland died, would the UK fly its flag at half mast?” Another declared that anyone defending the mark of respect was “no Irishman.”

Embarrassing. I fully understand that diplomatic protocol sometimes means lowering the flag to mourn tragedies in our allies, but the natural death at age 99 of the husband of a head of state who is head of state because her ansectors won a war, is not a tragedy.

— Sorcha Nic Ón Rí (@sarahkingnadal) April 17, 2021

Why are we showing respect to a man who was part of an establishment that has thrived off of colonialism and racism, and couldn’t care less about Ireland? Is diplomacy more important than self-respect? https://t.co/8ZhRTs9o0E

— Cillian (@LFC_Cillian) April 17, 2021

The history of English rule in Ireland is a turbulent one, beginning with the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. Sporadic conflict between the English and the native Irish played out until the late 17th Century, when Ireland was conquered proper. Irish nationalists won independence in 1922 after a two-and-a-half-year war – but six northern counties have remained part of the UK.

No matter the history, some commenters felt that Higgins’ gesture was a commendable one. “The most Irish thing in this world is to mark the passing of a neighbour,” one wrote. “A funeral is a funeral – you show up.”

The most Irish thing in this world is to mark the passing of a neighbour + even if they support a different parish/county in the hurling, vote differently, or even if their grandfather bought/inherited land they shouldn’t have 80 years ago – a funeral is a funeral – you show up https://t.co/V77aQGOOu6

— Maurice Fitzgerald (@maurfitzcappa) April 17, 2021

I saw comments that they wouldn’t do the same for us – So what? What others do should not stop us acting with maturity, dignity and sensitivity when the occasion requires it. President Higgins represented us well with this gesture. https://t.co/9gcVwAkIUh

— Níall McCullagh (@mccullaghniall) April 17, 2021

If you’re serious about wanting a United ireland you’re going to have to understand why things like this are necessary. It’s just a gesture of respect. Doesn’t cost you anything to do that. In doing so it takes away a lot of unionists arguments that they’re not being respected.

— Force Ghost David 🇰🇭 (@davidintheforc1) April 17, 2021

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Source

[uk-news-talking-politics]

We're going to have to accept that some things are good and bad

By Ian Dunt

No-one really likes complexity. We say that we do, but we don't. It's a constant battle to reject our instinctive need for goodies and baddies. But if this period in time is going to be anything other than a culture war horror story, then we're going to have to show some proper commitment to it.

The statue of Edward Colston was an easy one. He had basically nothing to recommend him. He was a slaver, with no other concrete achievements but for the money he made from it. It should never have gone up in the first place and it is embarrassing that it remained standing as long as it did. The protesters simply did what others had failed to do. You can tell how clear the case is by the fact that no-one, except for a fringe of look-at-me anti-virtue-signalling right-wingers online, is calling for it to be erected again.

There are plenty of other figures like Colston. The most obvious is Cecil Rhodes, whose primary mission was one of racism and colonialism. These figures are united by the fact that they really have no accomplishments apart from that for which they are condemned. There's nothing we can find in them which is not abysmal. And there is therefore no need for them to still stand there, a taint on our present by virtue of a lack of reflection about our past.

But the debate is now veering towards more complex figures. The University of Liverpool is renaming a building named after former prime minister William Gladstone. Winston Churchill's statue is regularly defaced for his racism.

The crucial distinction between these examples and that of Colston or Rhodes is in the achievement of the individual. Gladstone established the Liberal party and fought for home rule for Ireland. Churchill accomplished more for anti-fascism than any of the people spraying graffiti on his statue are likely to.

The point is not that good acts undo bad views. It is that statues are a reflection of the present, not the past. They reflect our current views of what we want to celebrate in history. And in either of these cases, it is not slavery or racism which is celebrated, but the other achievements of those figures.

There's another distinction though, which is less important to the immediate debate but more important to how we proceed from here. We have to accept that people can be good and bad.

Gladstone's father was involved in slavery. You can't pin the blame for him on that. But you can for the speech he made in the Commons calling for compensation for slave owners during abolition.

At that stage he was still young and under his father's shadow. Later, he recognised the mistake and called slavery "by far the foulest crime that taints the history of mankind".

But he made a similar mistake during the American civil war. At first he supported the South, saying the Confederation had "made a nation". This wasn't remotely unusual at the time. Many British liberals backed the South, seeing it as a fight for self-determination. But the only reason they were able to maintain that view and still call themselves liberals is because it did not occur to them that black people deserved individual freedom. Gladstone later regretted that decision too.

There's no point saying that he was a product of his time. Plenty of people at the time recognised the evil of what was happening. During the American civil war, English liberals like John Stuart Mill made it quite clear what the real stakes were and saw clearly the moral demands of it.

But there is a point in saying that people can change. They can question themselves and improve. They are not frozen into place at the moment of their worst opinion.

The same applies to cultural products. The debate over statues is gradually migrating over to television, as nervous intellectual property holders take programmes off their streaming services in case they trigger a backlash. The latest victims are Gone With the Wind, Little Britain and an episode of Fawlty Towers.

It's up to a media company what they want to put up. They are deciding what reflects the moral norms of their customer base.

The real issue is in the viewer. We have to accept that there may be things of value in that which we disagree with. And that goes to the extremes. The Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will used moving cameras and aerial photography in a ground-breaking way. It would be perfectly natural and right to include it in a film course.

It also applies to racial slurs or xenophobia in British comedies. Most of the prejudice in Fawlty Towers is used to show the idiocy of the person expressing it. It's not approving. But there's plenty to criticise, nonetheless. If we're honest about it, the whole character of Manuel is kind of grim. He is the idiot foreigner, a portrait of southern Europeans as dimwit children.

But as it happens Fawlty Towers is also the single best sitcom Britain has ever created. And those scenes specifically, of Fawlty abusing Manuel, are extremely funny.

All these things can be true at the same time. It is possible for multiple things to be happening in our heads simultaneously - disapproval and delight, criticism and laughter. You can close yourself off from that, but every time you do so is a retreat into monism.

The only alternative is to get lost in the abysmal good-bad binary of the culture war. You can see the threat of that now: social justice campaigners overstepping that crucial line, the one the left always trips over - going from its victories into ever more puritanical territory, losing its sympathisers and potential sympathisers on the way. And on the other side, the dead-eyed hatred of the online far-right, or alt-right, or whatever new term they have now constructed to mask the decrepitude of their moral capacity.

There's no winners in that debate. It accomplishes nothing. It helps no-one. And it commits one of the worst sins of all: pretending the world is simple.

[today-in-wwi]

Imperial War Graves Commission Is Chartered

Fabian Ware (1869-1949), creator of the organization that became the Imperial War Graves Commission. It is still active to this day as (since 1960) the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

May 21 1917, London--The scale of the deaths in World War I had overwhelmed many of the belligerents, simply on a logistical basis alone. Burying the dead was a monumental task, with local graveyards near the front lines quickly running out of room.  And once the dead were buried, keeping proper documentation of which soldiers were buried where was also extremely challenging.  Fabian Ware, a British executive with Rio Tinto and a volunteer with the Red Cross, had started an unofficial effort in late 1914, which was recognized by the BEF as the Graves Registration Commission in March 1915.  The Commission kept records of the graves, sent photographs of the graves to bereaved relatives upon request, and negotiated for the purchase of land for new cemeteries all along the front.

Recognizing the scope of the problem, the Imperial War Cabinet expanded Ware’s efforts into the Imperial War Graves Commission, which would be responsible for the graves of both British soldiers and those of her dominions and colonies.  Its mandate was also intended to extend well after the war, to continue to register graves and to keep them well-maintained.  Ware served as vice-chairman, with the Prince of Wales serving as its President and Lord Derby (the War Secretary) as Chairman.  Despite Ware’s efforts and the increased resources, the Commission’s task was still exceedingly difficult.  By the end of the year, 559,000 British and Imperial war dead were still listed as having no known grave--slightly under half of the total killed to that point.

Today in 1916: Daylight Saving Time Introduced in Britain & Ireland Today in 1915:  Churchill Resigns as First Lord of the Admiralty

[aion-rsa]

The Teleprompter Interview: Michael Smiley ‘I Still Get Recognised Most for Tyres in Spaced’

https://ift.tt/2ZrgAxt

‘When somebody decides to call a character Brock Blennerhassett,’ says Michael Smiley, ‘you think, well, that hasn’t just come off the top of your head, there must be something going on there!’ What’s going on with Blennerhassett, his lead role in new darkly comic Victorian drama Dead Still, is strange, timely and layered, says Smiley.

Dead Still, available in the UK now to stream on Acorn TV, is ‘a dark, funny, proper period drama set in Dublin in Victorian times’ Smiley explains. His character Blennerhassett is part of the Anglo-Irish landed gentry who’s broken away to work in the experimental field of memorial photography, taking pictures of posed corpses for bereaved families. ‘That was a big thing in Victorian times because of the British Empire being in mourning after Prince Albert died.’

The series blends a murder mystery with gallows humour and colonial Irish politics. ‘All of those slightly dark times have been cast in with the Empire,’ says Smiley, who’s hoping for a second series. ‘The whole concept has legs.’

A frequent collaborator with writer-director Ben Wheatley, a comedian and star of indie cinema, with mainstream roles in Luther, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Black Mirror, Doctor Who and Spaced, Michael Smiley talks Den of Geek through his TV memories.

Which TV show inspired you to start acting?

I wasn’t inspired to start acting. I wasn’t one of those people. Anybody on television or in the cinema were from another planet, it wasn’t for the likes of me. I was a working class kid from a housing estate on the outskirts of Belfast, it wasn’t like my parents said [English accent] ‘You should go on the stage young man!’ That wasn’t my life. It was a beautiful mistake that I ended up with the career that I’ve got.

But I grew up on Play for Today. I was allowed to stay up and watch it with my dad when I was a kid. It was the first time that I came across Alan Bleasdale’s work. He was a major influence, that was the first time I’d really seen the working class being represented in the best way, warts and all. Then I went backwards and watched A Taste of Honey and Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, I became obsessed with kitchen sink drama. The closest we had to it in Northern Ireland was the Billy plays, the Billy trilogy [by Graham Reed] which was Kenneth Branagh’s debut with James Ellis, about a working class family in Belfast.

And how about as a comedian? Did you watch stand-ups on television growing up?

Again, there wasn’t much stand-up on TV apart from The Comedians, just fat blokes talking about Pakistanis and Irish, ‘stupid Irishmen’ and stuff like that, I didn’t enjoy that.

I enjoyed collecting jokes and being able to tell a joke, having a repertoire. I would collect jokes and tell them in the playground and we’d swap jokes then we’d go home and tell them to our parents.

As far as stand-up on the TV, the first time I really saw any would have been Billy Connolly Bites Yer Bum and the first Richard Pryor one, Live in Concert, where he’s wearing the red silk shirt and Robin Williams Live at the Met, they were the three big ones.

When you were telling those jokes in the playground, did you ever pretend to be TV characters?

Yeah, I used to do Rigsby, I used to do [Rising Damp’s] Leonard Rossiter. [Does a very passable Rigsby impression] I had a very limited repertoire, so I would pretty much do Rigsby over and over.

And I was called Monty Python, that was another big thing. I got The Life of Brian on audiotape, so then I knew all the jokes in that, then when I saw it I was really disappointed in the film [laughs] because I loved the cassette.

Read more

Movies

Ben Mendelsohn and Michael Smiley interview: Black Sea

By Brendon Connelly

Movies

Kill List review

By Michael Leader

Have any TV shows given you nightmares?

I was allowed to stay up and watch the old Hammer Horror when I was a kid, the ones with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing and I got a few nightmares off that. Nothing else to be honest. The news in Northern Ireland when I was a kid was enough of a nightmare.

And when did you last cry watching television?

I’m always crying to be honest. In all seriousness, the last time I cried was the documentary on Grenfell, and everything about George Floyd. Without taking it too deep and too dark for this interview, that made me cry with exasperation and frustration.

But also I love The Repair Shop. I watched it when it was on BBC Two late afternoon, it was sort of like an out-of-work actor’s little secret thing. I really love that. I normally shed a tear at a woman bringing in a present that her father made her who’s just died, those things always make me cry.

When did you last laugh out loud watching television?

When I was a kid, we were a big one for cartoons. Droopy was a big family favourite and Foghorn Leghorn. I would laugh out loud watching my da laugh out loud, things like Monty Python’s Flying Circus and Spike Milligan and stuff like that was the laugh out loud stuff in our house.

Also, recently, we’ve become a big family of Friday Night Dinner fans, that’s a family favourite. We’ll sit down and watch episode after episode after episode. My nine-year-old daughter has become obsessed with Jim, played by Mark Heap, he’s a hero of hers. She does her version. She gets up and does her little impressions of Jim, which just reminds me of me being a kid doing my impressions of Rigsby [laughs].

What was the last TV show you recommended to a friend?

Things like The Wire would always be something that I’d recommend. Friday Night Dinner is something I’ve recommended.

I like these stupid programmes, real life programmes as opposed to getting involved in box-sets or watching lots on Netflix. I’ll watch The Dog Rescuers with Alan Davies over and over again.

A thing I really love is A House Through Time, with David Olusoga. He’s a great presenter, I love how he presents himself on screen. He’s got a real keenness about him and you can tell he’s quietly obsessed with the subject. He’s great on camera and I love the concept of tracing the history of the families and the stories that went through a building. I’m always banging on about that.

Also, anything with [chef and writer] Anthony Bourdain, God rest his soul. I really love his stuff. On Netflix recently there’s his last series before he died so I’d recommend that too.

Which TV show would you bring back from the dead?

Boys from the Blackstuff. It’s Bleasdale at his best. I saw it when it was ‘The Black Stuff’, which was a Play for Today, and then they made a series out of it. It’s about Liverpool in the 70s and 80s when it was really poor and it was being strangled by the government and getting no funding and everybody was on the dole and it was about how these people kept living and how they tried to find work. It was the first time you’d see people like Julie Walters, for example, Bernard Hill and Michael Angelis, who died recently, just really great actors. I’d like to see a reprisal of that. I would like to see how they’ve done over the years.

Does that answer the next question of which TV show do you wish more people would watch?

I’d say so, yeah.

How about something from your own back catalogue that you feel deserves more attention than it got at the time?

Free Fire. I don’t think enough people saw Free Fire. There’s a little short that I’ve done ages ago, called Believe (watch it here), which is by Paul Wright and Kate Dickie and Paul Hickey are in it. I play a guy whose wife dies and she makes him all these tapes to help him with her passing and he believes he’s going to see her again. I wish more people had seen that because it was the start of Paul Wright’s career as a director.

I also loved Bleak House [2005] and I would have loved a second series of Murder Prevention, which is a cop drama I did on Channel 5 that only got one series but it got loads of good reviews.

And I’d like Sean Lock to do another series of 15 Storeys High.

That’s a good call. Speaking of old shows, we had the 20th anniversary of Spaced last year. What did the part of Tyres mean to you?

Tyres was, of all my characters, probably my most iconic. Tyres is the one, 20 years later, that I still get recognised for the most. It’s a generational thing.

That’s what kicked it off for me. I was really blessed that my TV debut was written for me and it was pretty much written about me – I was an acid house DJ who was also a cycle courier. Me and Simon [Pegg] and Nick [Frost] lived together, so our characters were organic, in the sense of using aspects of our real lives and putting them on the characters on screen. It was a blessing, not many people get that sort of a break.

We knew it was good, but it came out at the same time as a lot of other quality comedy. It’s had such a loyal following, the Spaced fans are all over, they come from everywhere, they’re like Doctor Who fans. It’s really great.

It was fun because it was new. It was new for everybody that was on it. Edgar [Wright, director] was just a wee lad and Nick had never acted before, Simon had done stand-up but didn’t exactly have a massive career at that time, he was only starting out. There was a real exuberance and excitement and it felt like ‘God, we’re having a great time. This is brilliant.’ It had a lovely energy of being young and everything being new, that’s what I remember about it.

Have you ever done fancy dress as a TV character?

The short answer is no. I hate fancy dress. People who turn up to parties in fancy dress… just fucking get a conversation going, let’s just talk, stop fucking standing like some dickhead projecting ‘Tonight I’m the Pirates of the Caribbean!’ No you’re not, you’re Nigel from IT. Let’s talk about IT, Nigel. It drives me insane.

You’ve just reminded me of those dickheads who run alongside the riders in the Tour de France, I want to kill them. It’s all become wrapped up in stag dos and blokes being blokey and having blokey times, you know, rugby blokey blokes all dressed up like women, wearing makeup and wearing those green all-in-one unitards, oh just go away man, honestly!

Is there a TV theme song that you know all the words to?

There’s a couple! They’re all of my generation – The Hair Bear Bunch, Top Cat and The Pink Panther. [Sings] ‘In the wonderland zoo we’re the certain bears who stay at home every night, never quarrel or fight, and we don’t even bite! Help help here come the bears! Help help here come the bears! It’s The Hair Bear Bunch!’

You don’t remember them?

A little bit before my time.

[Sings louder] ‘Top Cat! The indisputable leader of the gang. He’s a boss, he’s a VIP he’s a championship, he’s the most tip top beedleyboop Top Cat!’

Have you watched those with your own kids?

Yeah we love it. They don’t love The Hair Bear Bunch because I think you had to be there. They love The Pink Panther and they love Top Cat. We watch all my old ones with them whether they like it or not.

Given the power, which TV show would you commission? Maybe another series of Dead Still?

Dead Still series two, there you go!

What was the most fun you’ve had making television?

Dead Still was fantastic. As dark as the subject matter was, the humour was there all the time. Weirdly, Kill List was one of the funniest films I’ve ever worked on.

Dead Still was hard work but we laughed and danced every day. I always love to go back to work in Northern Ireland. The banter’s blistering. We take no prisoners over there. Everyone works hard, they’re just dedicated and love to laugh as well. That’s a really important ingredient if you’re going to tell stories, it should be with a joy. We’re privileged to do this job so let’s be kind to each other and crack on.

Dead Still is streaming now on Acorn TV (UK)

The post The Teleprompter Interview: Michael Smiley ‘I Still Get Recognised Most for Tyres in Spaced’ appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2Zpm7Vt

[austenmarriage]

New Post has been published on Austen Marriage

New Post has been published on http://austenmarriage.com/1390-2/

London Run Riot: The Overt Politics of Austen's Gothic Romp

During Jane Austen’s life and beyond, England was beset with constant internal strife—labor protests, political riots, and military mutinies. These came as the result of falling wages–caused by increasing mill automation–high-priced food, and the harsh conditions and poor pay of military life. From the mid-1790s through the end of Austen’s life, a major insurrection would boil up at least once every couple of years.

These rebellions, coupled with the revolutions in the United States and France—the latter disintegrating into the wholesale slaughter of the aristocracy—left Tories deathly afraid that they, the King, and traditional British order would be overthrown as well, either by the demon Democracy or la Terreur.

Yet one must read Jane Austen carefully to find topical mentions of these big issues of the day. Northanger Abbey, her least mature work—completed first, published last—turns out to contain the most overt references to political dissent.

The first such reference involves General Tilney’s reading material. During Catherine Morland’s stay with the family, he says to her one evening: “I have many pamphlets to finish before I can close my eyes, and perhaps may be poring over the affairs of the nation for hours after you are asleep.” Catherine is not impressed by his pompous self-regard. She assumes that his late-night activities relate instead to her Gothic vision of wanton cruelty to a wife rattling about in hidden rooms of the abbey: “To be kept up for hours, after the family were in bed, by stupid pamphlets was not very likely. There must be some deeper cause.”

We never learn the details of the pamphlets, but we can presume that the Tory general, who by age would have fought against the Americans in the Revolutionary War, is not reading the latest tract on the freedom of man by the firebrand Thomas Paine. More likely, he is reading a pamphlet published by the Bath Loyal Association (BLA), which he would have picked up while in the resort town. Set up under the auspices of the Bath mayor at the time of the French revolution, the BLA was an “Association for preserving Liberty and Property and the Constitution against the Levellers and Republicans.”

Among other things, it published a declaration pledging undying loyalty to the King. Signed by hundreds of people, the pledge declared that “the wild doctrine of equality, newly propagated, is unknown to the English Constitution, is incompatible with Civil Society, and only held forth as a Delusion to mislead the lower ranks of the people, to poison the minds of his Majesty’s subjects … and to substitute Anarchy in the place of our mild and happy Government.”

By equating equality and a republican form of government with anarchy, conservatives created a deadly self-fulfilling cycle. The government put down nonviolent pleas for reform as ferociously as insurrections, driving more people into the folds of the rebels and creating more anti-government plots.

Most of the insurgencies had the same game plan. One set of conspirators in London would try to seize the king, key members of Parliament, funds from the Bank of England, and weapons from the Tower of London. Another set of revolutionaries would simultaneously start a revolt in one of the northern counties, areas that seethed with unhappy factory workers, or in Ireland, which hated English rule. The hope was that a general uprising would bring in disgruntled soldiers. The northern militants would march south and join forces with the London cadre, and Liberté would reign.

Unfortunately for the rebels, England’s extensive spy network exposed the larger plots before they could be carried out. As detailed in Sue Wilkes’s Regency Spies: Secret Histories of Britain’s Rebels and Revolutionaries, the typical result would be local outbreaks of violence that were quickly put down, the execution of two or three leaders, and transportation (exile) for another dozen or so conspirators to the penal colony of Australia. The government and Tory press played up these intrigues to justify further harsh suppression of any protest.

In Henry Tilney’s condescending view, the women in “Northanger Abbey” are not aware of the bigger social and political matters of the day–though his sister, in fact, is very much up on current events.

This—a succession of threatened and failed revolts—is the historical context for one of the funniest scenes anywhere in Austen, when Catherine Morland and Eleanor Tilney talk past each other on current events and Henry Tilney eggs on their confusion. The exchange begins as Henry is “mansplaining” to the ladies about various important topics. When he pauses, Catherine solemnly says: “I have heard that something very shocking indeed will soon come out in London. … It is to be more horrible than anything we have met with yet. … It is to be uncommonly dreadful. I shall expect murder and everything of the kind.”

The last subject having been politics, Eleanor is startled, thinking Catherine is talking about a new uprising when instead she means the usual wild, horrific events sure to be part of a soon-to-be-released Gothic novel. Believing that the working classes are marching down from London to terrorize Bath, Eleanor reacts: “Good heaven! … You speak with astonishing composure! But … if such a design is known beforehand, proper measures will undoubtedly be taken by government to prevent its coming to effect.”

Henry sees what is going on but decides to join in the joke at his sister’s expense. “Government,” he says, “neither desires nor dares to interfere in such matters. There must be murder; and government cares not how much. … ” Eleanor responds: “Miss Morland, do not mind what he says; but have the goodness to satisfy me as to this dreadful riot.”

“Riot! What riot?” Catherine exclaims, now equally confused.

Henry then tells Eleanor that the only riot is in her brain, that Catherine is talking of nothing more dreadful than a scary new book featuring tombstones and lanterns. But he criticizes Eleanor’s gullibility, which leads her to picture “a mob of three thousand men assembling in St. George’s Fields, the Bank attacked, the Tower threatened, the streets of London flowing with blood, a detachment of the Twelfth Light Dragoons (the hopes of the nation) called up from Northampton to quell the insurgents, and the gallant Captain Frederick Tilney, in the moment of charging at the head of his troop, knocked off his horse by a brickbat from an upper window.”

Henry’s jocular but condescending point is that Eleanor, Catherine, and women in general have no understanding of public issues or other weighty subjects. Given Catherine’s rapid switch of topic and lack of clarification, however, Eleanor has every reason to be alarmed at the very real possibility of public violence—especially if the army is involved. Eleanor insists on an apology for his affront to her, which he gives in his usual half-serious manner.

This is Henry’s typical treatment of his sister, and even to Catherine, to some degree. As the scene ends, we’re unsure whether he has actually apologized or is still laughing at them rather than with them.

Next time: Does Henry’s riot reference change our understanding of when Austen finished Northanger Abbey?

The Marriage of Miss Jane Austen, which traces love from a charming courtship through the richness and complexity of marriage and concludes with a test of the heroine’s courage and moral convictions, is now complete and available from Amazon and Jane Austen Books.

[jfitski-blog]

Irish Slaves, and Why You’re Wrong, Part 2 of 2

Part II: Why Is This Popular!?

So if the Irish slave myth is so easy to debunk, why is this still popular, and in some cases becoming even more popular on the internet? Well, ignorance and a general lack of public knowledge on chattel slavery and indentured servitude is to blame in some regard, there is a more...insidious, shall we say, reason for the myth’s existence.

Racism, we’re talking racism here, folks. Might as well stop beating around the bush. Essentially, the institution of indentured servitude has been used by white supremacists and racists in both the United States and Ireland as a way to belittle chattel slavery by equating the two systems and stating that, since the Irish were enslaved, African-Americans cannot claim grievance on the destruction of slavery towards their culture, integration, and treatment as human beings historically. It is using a misunderstanding of words and distinctions to outright lie about the situation in the colonial Caribbean, and give the impression that either slavery at this time was not based on the dehumanization of Africans and people with darker skin, or emphasizing the suffering of Irish indentured servants to serve the white nationalist talking point of historical “white oppression”. The popularization of this narrative has been helped by the internet, but its origins and initial popularization stem to two books, To Hell or Barbados by Sean O’Callaghan, originally published in 2000, and White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America by Don Jordan and Michael J. Walsh, originally published in 2007.

HAAATE.

HAAAAAAAAAAATE!

I am hesitant to state that both To Hell or Barbados and White Cargo are racist reading material and call them out as such, because neither really aim to advance a racist narrative, at least intentionally. However, by feeding into certain myths and being more interested with creating an intriguing story then actually telling an accurate history, these books do create an extremely misguided and false view of history that is ripe for those willing to abuse the ignorance of others.

Sean O’Callaghan’s To Hell or Barbados is, as stated above, not an intentionally racist or apologetic book, but it does misguide the reader into wrongly assuming the roles of Irish indentured servants and enslaved Africans were, if not the same, at least similar. Part of this stems from O’Callaghan’s extremely misguided decision to use the term “Irish slaves” to identify the indentured servants in either a way to give readers a felling of sympathy (which – regarding the subject matter – seems rather unnecessary) or as an attempt to create a connection between the two forms of forced labour. In fact, O’Callaghan in To Hell or Barbados seems to very rarely discuss the plight of black slaves in the colonies, unless the situation calls for a comparison between the Irish “slaves” and enslaved Africans, or when to point out cases where both groups faced equal hardships.[1] Essentially, O’Callaghan created in his book a narrative that, by emphasizing and sensationalizing Irish hardships, expanded like wildfire throughout the Irish nationalist community as a way to show even further discrimination from British authorities (even though the entire rest of Irish history can attest to that quite well without have to resort to lies and mythmaking), especially in the case of placing the blame of the so-called “Irish slave trade” on Oliver Cromwell and his administration of Ireland in the 1560s, which although thousands of Irishmen and women were “Barbadosed” and unwillingly sent to the Caribbean[2], they are often not counted by historians as indentured servants but as actual penal prisoners, which simply adds proof to the theory that To Hell or Barbados plays rather loose with its wording and definitions, something you very much do not want to do in a history book.

But Sean O’Callaghan’s writing in To Hell or Barbados and his rather frustrating liberal use of wording in regards to the ticking time bomb that is the Atlantic Slave Trade is nothing compared to White Cargo. If O’Callaghan’s book was a rather misguided, although genuine attempt to discuss Irish indentured servitude, White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America is more insidious. This is to not accuse the writers, Don Jordan and Michael J. Walsh of anything regarding racism or, God forbid, white supremacy, but even if their intentions to educate were genuine and well-founded, their book does little but to popularize a myth for an American audience. White Cargo falls into the same traps To Hell or Barbados does in referring to indentured servants as “slaves” and equating the practice with chattel slavery. White Cargo also brings up the case of the plantation owner Anthony Johnston, a freed black man, originally from modern-day Angola, who has the distinction of being one of the first well-known slave holders in Virginia.[3] The case of Johnston is intriguing and does confirm the nuanced nature of the slave trade, but how White Cargo portrays the events surrounding him seem rather...concerning, for sake of brevity. Johnston’s case is also so unique in history that it acts as more an exception of the racial basis of American chattel slavery (and even then not really, since the slaves that Johnston held – at least of what I can find – were black, not Irish).[4] In short, White Cargo’s misunderstandings and falsehoods it promotes by trying to tell a specific narrative rather than deal with the historical nuance of the period have helped popularize a very dangerous myth.

This is so Old South racist it’s actually kind of charming, in a sickening kind of way.

Evidence #1628 on why Twitter and social media was a mistake.

Why is the Irish slave myth dangerous? Why are works such as To Hell or Barbados or White Cargo key to this danger? Well, simply because the myth relies on such a misunderstanding of Caribbean history and slavery and runs completely counter to the nuance of the period and region in terms of forced labour. But importantly though, the myth provides a discussion point for white supremacists, their allies, and their (for lack of a better word) useful idiots to de-emphasize the racial aspect of colonialism and essentially play the game of “Oppression Olympics”, even though the Irish and Irish-Americans today in general do not face discrimination in former slave societies such as the United States due to historical injustices, as African-Americans do. However, the existence of indentured servitude means a history that racists exploit and distort in order to make outrageous claims such as the Irish being the first slaves in colonial North America and using such published works as To Hell or Barbados and White Cargo as ammunition and wrongly state that the academic consensus supports them. With the advent of the internet, this has helped the Irish slave myth expand even further, and even more people without proper knowledge have unfortunately been misled to believe to an Irish slave trade did happen, and that it is comparable to the chattel slavery used against Africans.

REFERENCED

[1] O'Callaghan, To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, 92-93.

[2] Beckles, "A "riotous and Unruly Lot": Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644-1713", 506-507.

[3] Jordan and Walsh, White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America, 169-172.

WORKS CITED

Beckles, Hilary McD.. "A "riotous and Unruly Lot": Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644-1713." The William and Mary Quarterly 47, no. 4 (1990): 503-22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2937974.

Block, Kristen, and Jenny Shaw. "Subjects without an Empire: The Irish in the Early Modern Caribbean." Past & Present, no. 210 (2011): 33-60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23015371.

Jordan, Don and Michael Walsh. White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America. Mainstream Publishers, 2007.

Nisbet, Richard. The Capacity of Negroes for Religious and Moral Improvement Considered. London: 1789. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001741932.

O'Callaghan, Sean. To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland. Roberts Rinehart Publishers, 2002.

Watson, Alan D. "A Consideration of European Indentured Servitude in Colonial North Carolina." The North Carolina Historical Review 91, no. 4 (2014): 381-406. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44113224.

[hardtostudy]

American

THE PLANTATION - South in 1815: growing prosperity, and power. 
- Cotton 
- Slavery affected also values, customs, laws, class structure and the region’s relationship to the nation and the world
 - Shape defined by plantation, cotton, and slaves

 MASTER-SLAVE RELATIONSHIP
 - Labor and profit was essential 
- The labor relation was connected with violence - Slaves bodies, labor, and lives began to be defined as chattel
 - Slaves struggled to survive but also to resist and limit the level of exploration 
- Essential struggle - turning the system of absolute power and personal domination of the master to a design based on reciprocity — - Slaves had the means and human agency to resist (made their masters observe some limits to the exploitation of their labor
 - Master-slave relationship was very asymmetrical 
 SLAVES 
- Legally — chattel property — enslave people — mere extension of the master’s will
 - J. H. Hammond:
 The cardinal principle of slavery — that the motive is to be regarded as a thing — as an article of prosperity - a chattel personal - obtains as undoubted law in all these southern states. 

The slave lives for his master service. His life, his labour, his comforts are all at his masters disposal. Slave is the most valuable property.

 - Masters exercised exclusive power of slaves
 - Slaves could be sold to pay off their ots, transferred, sold by executors to set states, seized by sheriffs, etc. 
- Only 10% of wills did show some human concessions and made a human connection (arrangement to protect their family after their master’s death) 
- As a property they were legally devoid of will
 - Lives of slaves were full of violence (constant surveillance, sold or transferred, sexual abuse)
 - Insistence on the recognition of their humanity, natural rights to family and or their owner’s recognition of these families and communities 
- The debate about race was much more heated in the North (Northern institutions and universities looking for scientific proofs). 
- Polygenesis — the idea that races were distinct and unequal in origin, Phrenology, etc.

 - In South — slavery took the ideological work
 - The defense of pro-slavery argument was largely biblical —fixed orders (hierarchy) were the basis of a proper Christian republic.

 - J. D. Hammond:
 What God ordains and Christ sanctifies should surely command a respect and toleration of Man 

PRO-SLAVERY ARGUMENT
 - The necessity of Democratic-Republican government (only on the foundations of slavery could true republican society flourish) 
- Rejection of liberalism and principles of human equality - W. Harpor 1837: 
…is it not palpably near the truth to say that no man was ever born free and no two men were born equal? 

PRO-SLAVERY 
— Slavery is like a marriage. A benevolent institution to protect the weak 
ANTI-SLAVERY 
— Slavery is like a marriage. A form of illegitimate authority formed to oppress.

 - Analogy of slavery and marriage was an attempt to extent the public sense of immorality of slavery to other equally illegitimate forms of social domination 
- Pro-slavery ideologues turned to gender analogies too — to justify as equally natural relation of masters and slaves.

 SLAVE RESISTANCE
 - The ability to convey the experience of slavery was highly constrained - Narratives with first-hand experience broke through to the public life outside the South
 - Anti-slavery narratives (Solomon Northup, David Walker, Frederick Douglas, etc.) — their confessions were crucial in shaping American politics in the run up for the Civil War
 - Nat Turner Rebellion - in 1831 in Virginia (70 whites were killed) - fear on both sides - whites constantly lived in the fear from these rebellions - Slave rebellions were not uncommon - with the Civil War messages in the South they were less covert

 SLAVE FAMILY
 - Family - a body to protect individuals 
- Slave marriage had no legal standing in the South - chattel property had no rights 
- Forcing owner’s recognition of Family was the greatest political achievement under slavery - to make AA define themselves as people 

Marriage = A husband also owns his wife (possession of her body, her property and her children) 
Slave marriage = Everything belonged to the master, not the man a slave woman married.

 SLAVERY AND WOMEN 
‘’…slavery is terrible for men but it is far more terrible for women’’ H. Jacobs
 - Intimate relationships were recognized in slave communities - Unwed mothers were not ashamed (virtue and virginity was necessarily different for slave women — they could not control the circumstances of their sexual life)

 KINSHIP 
- Kinship (fictive kin) - extended biological ties - practice that tied people to children and expand the group and people invested in the child’s wellbeing - The selling of slaves involved repeated cycles of social death and re-birth - the narrative of Ch. Ball.

 THE END OF SLAVERY
 - The Civil War meant the end of slavery as an institution and the beginning of life - family, religion, freedom
 - When slaves were finally articulated, slaveholders had to acknowledge them as people

 THE END OF PLANTATION 
- 1865 the Confederacy was in ruins, slave regime was defeated - AA southerners had a long journey to gain their dignity 
- It was also the fall of the planter’s class. The plantation ended.
 THE HOME - ‘’America is God’s crucible, the great melting pot where all the races of Europe are melting and reforming!’’
 - 1607 - The arrival of three ships in the Chesapeake Bay
 - It was the newcomers who had the larger impact on the natives, rather than the other way around 
- Up through the early 1800s, European immigrants streamed into the colonies and the US, primarily from the British Isles

 FIRST WAVE OF IMMIGRATION
 - Late 1700s, it was the Scotch-Irish (Scots who had briefly settled in Ireland).
 - From about 1820 to 1880, it was the Irish and Germans.
 - The Irish arrived poor, but the Germans often had a little money and a skill.
 - The Irish took menial jobs, while the Germans went into printing, banking, painting, etc.
 - Many Germans pushed on to the Midwest, set up farming communities, and maintained old-country traditions.

 SECOND WAVE OF IMMIGRATION
 - From 1880-1924 some 26mil immigrants arrived — the largest migration in world history.
 - The earlier wave was primarily from western and northern Europe, the second wave was largely from eastern and southern Europe (large numbers of Italians, Jews fleeing persecution in Russia, Poland, and Hungary)
 - Between 1900 and 1909, when the 2nd wave peaked, two-thirds of immigrants came from Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia.
 - By 1910 arrivals from Mexico outnumbered arrivals from Ireland, and numerous Japanese had moved to the West Coast and Hawaii. Foreign-born blacks, mainly from the West Indies, also came. 
- Many immigrants never intended to stay.
 - For every hundred foreigners who entered the country, around thirty ultimately left.
 - Most of the 26mil immigrants who arrived with this wave remained, and the great majority settled in cities. 

MELTING POT
 - A salad bowl with discrete units may be slightly better 
- Suggests the nature of America at the time — a changing blend of cultures.
 - Each group affects and is affected by the pre-existing culture, yet the result is more or less homogeneous society that speaks the same language and abides by the same laws.
 - Immigration to the US was part of a world-wide movement
 - Population pressures, land redistribution, and industrialization induced millions of peasants, small land-owners, and craftsmen to leave Europe and Asia for Canada, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and the US.
 - Technological advances in communications and transportation spread news of opportunities and made travel cheaper, quicker, and safer.
 - Religious persecution — pogroms and military conscription that Jews suffered in eastern Europe, forced people to escape across the Atlantic. 
- New arrivals received aid from relatives who had already immigrated

 NON-WHITE CITIZENS
 - African Americans, American Indians, Mexican Americans, and Asian Americans — their opportunities were scarce.
 - Asians particularly encountered discrimination and isolated residential experience — they were blamed for unemployment in California in the late 1870s.
 - ,,The Chinese must go’'
 - To limit this latest influx, the government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.

 THE AMERICAN DREAM
 - Non-manual jobs and the higher social status and income were attainable (white-collar jobs). 
- From poverty to moderate success.
 - Rates of upward occupational mobility were slow but steady between 1870 and 1920 (One in five manual workers rose to white-collar or owner’s positions within ten years)
 - America was not a utopian dream, but it was generally better than what they had left behind. - In the 1920s intolerance pervaded American society 
- Congress reversed previous policy and, In the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, set yearly immigration allocations for each nationality
 - Preference for Anglo-Saxon Protestant immigrants reflected in annual immigration quotas for eastern European nationalities (could not exceed 3% of the number of immigrants from that nation residing in the United States in 1910).
 - In 1924 Congress replaced it with the National Origins Act - law that limited annual immigration to 150 000 ppl and set quotas at 2% of each nationality residing in the US in 1890, except for Asians, who were banned completely.
 - In 1950, 88% of Americans were of European ancestry; 10% of the population was African American; 2% was Hispanic; and Native Americans and Asian Americans each accounted for about one fifth of 1%.
 - By 1960s only 5,7% of Americans were foreign-born (compared with approx 15% in 1910 and 12,4 in 2005)

 - The immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 ended the quota system that favored some nationalities over others. 
- Between 1970 and 1990s the US absorbed more than 13 mil new arrivals, most from Latin America and Asia. Immigrants flooded in from South Korea, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Singapore, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. 
- In 1970 Latinos comprises 4,5% of the nation’s population; it jumped to 9% by 1990s, when one out of three Los Angelenos and Miamians were Hispanic.
 - Hispanics created a new hybrid culture — ‘'We want to be here, but without losing our language and our culture. They are richness, a treasure that we don’t care to lose.'' - Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 — ( discourage illegal immigration by imposing sanctions on employers who hired undocumented workers).
 - In 2002 the foreign-born were 11,5% of the US population, a rising trend in recent decades, though still below the 14,5% of 1910…
 WOMEN "a woman's place is in the home" Not mentioned in  the Declaration of Independence, they were absent in the Constitution, they were invisible in the new political democracy. They were the women of early America – half the population that remained invisible – the very invisibility of women is a sign of their submerged status. Throughout most of history women generally have had fewer legal rights and career opportunities than men. Wifehood and motherhood were regarded as women's most significant professions. In the 20th century, however, women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educational and job opportunities. Perhaps most important, they fought for and to a large degree accomplished a reevaluation of traditional views of their role in society. Maternity, the natural biological role of women, has traditionally been regarded as their major social role as well. The resulting stereotype that "a woman's place is in the home" has largely determined the ways in which women have expressed themselves.  Biological predispositions positioned women as childbearers – whom men could use, exploit, who was at the same time servant, sex mate, companion, and bearer-teacher-warden of his children. Societies based on private property and competition in which monogamous families became practical units for work and socialiyation found it especially useful to establish this special status of women – something of a house slave in the mater of intimacy and oppression. The conditions under which white settlers came to America created various situations for women. Where the first settlements consisted almost entirely of men, women were imported as sex slaves, childbearers, companions. In 1619, the year that the first black slaves came to Virginia, ninety women arrived at Jamestown on one ship: „Agreeable persons, young and incorrupt... sold with their own consent to settlers as wives, the price to be the cost of their own transportation.“ Most women came as indentured servants – and did not live lives much different from slaves – they were to be obedient to masters and mistresses... The situation was much worse for black women – as slaves they were the property of their masters Even free white women not brought as servants or slaves, but as wives of the early settlers, faced special hardships.. Those who lived shared the life in the wildernss with their men and were often gien respect because they were so bady needed. And when men died, women often took up the men’s work as well. Women on the American frontier seemed close to equality with their men. But many were burdened with ideas from England influenced by Christian teachings. English law was summarized in a document of 1632 – „The lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights“ „In this consolidation which we call wedlock is a locking together. I tis true, that man and wife are one person, but understand in what manner. When a small brooke or little river incorporateth with Rhodanus, Humber, or the Thames, the poor rivulet looseth her name..... A woman as soon as she is married, is called covert... that is, „veiled“; as it were, clouded and overshadowed; she hath lost her streame. I may more truly, farre away, say to a married woman, her new self is her superior; her companion, her master…” Julia Spruill describes the woman’s legal situation in the colonial period: “The husband’s control over the wife’s person extended to the right of giving her chastisement…. But he was not entitled to inflict permanent injury or death on his wife…” As for property: “Besides absolute possession of his wife’s personal property and a life estate in her lands, the husband took any other income that might be hers. He collected wages earned by her labor…. Naturally it followed that the proceeds of the joint labor of husband wife belonged to the husband.” Puritan New England carried over the subjection of women – one woman dared to complain about the work a carpenter had done for her, the Reverend John Cotton said – “… that the husband should obey his wife, and not the wife the husband, that is a false principle. For God hath put another law upon women: wives, be subject to your husbands in all things.” In the 1700s – a best-selling “pocket-book” Advice to a Daughter: “You must first lay it down for a Foundation in general, that there is inequality in sexes, and that for the better Economy of the world; the men, who were to be the law-givers, had the larger share of reason bestowed upon them; by which means your sex is the better prepared for the xompliance that is necessary for the performance of those duties which seemed to be most properly assigned to it… your sex wanted our reason for your conduct, and our strength for your protection: ours wanted your gentleness to soften, and to entertain us… “ Yet women rebelled. Ann Hutchinson – a religious woman, mother of thirteen children – insisted that she, and other ordinary people, could interpret the Bible for themselves. She was a good speaker, held meetings and people gathered at her home in Boston to listen to her criticism of local ministers. John Winthrop described her as “a woman of a haughty and fierce carriage, of a nimble wit and active spirit, and a very voluble tongue, more bold than a man, though in understanding and judgement, inferior to many women.” She was put on trial for heresy and for challenging the authority of the government.  She was made to leave Boston. 20years later, one person who had spoken up for her during Hutchinson’s trial was hanged for rebellion, sedition, and presumptuous obtruding themselves.” During the Revolution, the necessities of war brought women out into public affairs. Women formed patriotic groups, carried out anti-British actions, wrote articles for independence. They were active in the campaign against the British tea tax. They organized Daughters of Liberty groups, boycotting British goods, urging women to make their own clothes and buy only American-made things. Abigail Adams – even before the Declaration of Independence wrote to her husband: … in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power in the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to obey the laws in which we have no voice of representation.” But Jefferson underscored his phrase “all men are created equal” by his statement that American women would be “too wise to wrinkle their foreheads with politics”.. And after the Revolution none of the new state constitutions granted women the right to vote. Between the American Revolution and the Civil War so many elements of American society were changing – the growth of population, the movement westward, the development of the factory system, expansion of political rights for white men, educational growth to match the new economic needs – that changes were bound to take place in the situation of women. In pre-industrial America, the practical need for women in a frontier society had produced some measure of equality – women worked at important jobs – publishing newspapers, managing tanneries, keeping taverns, engaging in skilled work. Women were being pulled out of the house and into industrial life, while at the same time there was pressure for women to stay home where they were more easily controlled. As the economy developed, men dominated as mechanics and tradesmen, and aggressiveness became more and more defined as a male trait. The outside world created fears and tensions in the dominant male world and brought forth ideological controls to replace the loosening family controls: the idea of “the woman’s place” promulgated by men, was accepted by many women. Cult of true womanhood – pious, religious, sexually pure, feminine, chaste, submissive.. The Young Lady’s Book of 1830 – “… in whatever situation of life a woman is placed from her cradle to her grave, a spirit of obedience and submission, pliability of temper, and humility of mind, are required from her.” “True feminine genius is ever timid, doubtful, and clingingly dependent; a perpetual childhood.” One book – rules for domestic happiness – “Do not expect too much”  “How interesting and important are the duties devolved on females as wives… the counsellor and friend of the husband; who makes it her daily study to lighten his cares, to soothe his sorrows, and to augment his joys; who, like a guardian angel, watches over his interests, warns him against dangers, comforts him under trials; and by her pious, assiduous, and attractive deportment, constantly endeavors to render him more virtuous, more useful, more honorable, and more happy.” Republican mothers – patriotic women – women were urged to be patriotic since they had the job of educating children. The cult of domesticity – to pacify women with a doctrine – separate but equal – giving her work equally as important as the man’s, but separate and different. Inside that “equality” there was the fact that the woman did not choose her mate, and once her marriage took place, her life was determined. The new ideology worked – it helped to produce the stability needed by a growing economy. But the cult of true womanhood could not erase what was visible  as evidence of woman’s subordinate status – she could not vote, could not own property; when she did work, her wages were one-fourth to one-half what men earned in the same job. Women were excluded from professions of law and medicine, from colleges from the ministry. In 1789 in new England was introduced the first industrial spinning machinery and now there was a demand for young girls to work the spinning machinery in factories. All the operations needed to turn cotton fiber into cloth were under one roof. The new textile factories swiftly multiplied – most of the women working there were between 15-30. Some of the earliest industrial strikes took place in these textile mills in the 1830s – demanded shorter workday “I was awakened at five, by the bells calling to labor. The time allowed for dressing and breakfast was so short, as many told me, that both were performed hurriedly, and then the work at the mill was begun by lamplight, and prosecuted without remission will twelve, and chiefly in a standing position. Then half an hour only allowed for dinner, from which the time for going and returning was deducted. Then back to the mills to work till seven o’clock…. It must be remembered that all the hours of labor are spent in rooms where oil lapms, together with from 40 to 80 persons, are exhausting the healthful principle of the air… and where the air is loaded with particles of cotton thrown from thousands of cards, spindles, and looms.” Middle-class women barred from higher education, began to monopolize the profession of primary-school teaching. Literacy among women doubled between 1780 and 1840. Women became health reformers. They formed movements against double standards in sexual behavior. They joined in religious organizations. Some of the most powerful of them joined the antislavery movement. So, by the time a clear feminist movement emerged in the 1840s, women had become practiced organizers, agigatators, speakers. “Reason  and religion teach us, that we too are primary existences… not the satellites of men.” Women, after becoming involved in other movements or reform – antislavery, temperance, dress style, prison conditions – turned, emboldened and experienced, to their own situation. Angelina Grimke, a southern white woman who became a fierce speaker and organizer against slavery, saw that movement leading further: “Let us all first wake up the nation to lift millions of slaves of both sexes from the dust, and turn them into men and then… it will be an easy matter to take millions of females from their knees and set them on their feet, or in other words transform them from babies into women.” Opposition – “Some have tried to become semi-men by putting on the Bloomer dress. Let me tell you in a word why it can never be done. Is is this: woman, robed and folded in her long dress, is beautiful. She walks gracefully…. If she attempts to run, the charm is gone…. Take off the robes, and put on pants, and show the limbs, and grace and mystery are all gone.” Sarah Grimke , Angelina’s sister, wrote: “During the early part of my life, my lot was cast among the butterflies of the fashionable world; and of this class of women, I am constrained to say, both from experience and observation, that their education is miserably deficient; that they are taught to regard marriage as the one thing needful, the only avenue to distinction…” Angelina was the first woman to address a committee of the Massachusetts state legislature on antislavery petitions.. Many other women began speaking on other issues and thus on the situation of women. Women put in enormous work in antislavery societies all over the country. In the course of this work, events were set in motion that carried the movement of women for their own equality racing alongside the movement against slavery. First Women’s Rights Convention in history – Seneca Falls, New York held by Elizabeth Cady Stanton = three hundred women and some men came. A Declaration of Principles was signed and signed by 68 womena dn 32 men. It made use of the language and rhythm of the Declaration of Independence.  A series of women’s conventions in various parts of the country followed the one at Seneca Falls. Sojourner Truth – “Ain’t I a woman?” – That man over there says that woman needs to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches…. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mudpuddles or give me any best place. And an’t I a woman? ..” Women began to resist, in the 1830s and 40s and 50s, the attempt to keep them in their “woman’s sphere”. They were taking part in all sorts of movements, for prisoners, for the insane, for black slaves, and also for all women. In the 19th century, women began working outside their homes in large numbers, notably in textile mills and garment shops. In poorly ventilated, crowded rooms women (and children) worked for as long as 12 hours a day. Great Britain passed a ten-hour-day law for women and children in 1847, but in the United States it was not until the 1910s that the states began to pass legislation limiting working hours and improving working conditions of women and children. Eventually, however, some of these labor laws were seen as restricting the rights of working women. For instance, laws prohibiting women from working more than an eight-hour day or from working at night effectively prevented women from holding many jobs, particularly supervisory positions, that might require overtime work. Laws in some states prohibited women from lifting weights above a certain amount varying from as little as 15 pounds (7 kilograms) again barring women from many jobs. During the 1960s several federal laws improving the economic status of women were passed. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 required equal wages for men and women doing equal work. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination against women by any company with 25 or more employees. A Presidential Executive Order in 1967 prohibited bias against women in hiring by federal government contractors. But discrimination in other fields persisted. Many retail stores would not issue independent credit cards to married women. Divorced or single women often found it difficult to obtain credit to purchase a house or a car. Laws concerned with welfare, crime, prostitution, and abortion also displayed a bias against women. In possible violation of a woman's right to privacy, for example, a mother receiving government welfare payments was subject to frequent investigations in order to verify her welfare claim. Sex discrimination in the definition of crimes existed in some areas of the United States. A woman who shot and killed her husband would be accused of homicide, but the shooting of a wife by her husband could be termed a "passion shooting." Only in 1968, for another example, did the Pennsylvania courts void a state law which required that any woman convicted of a felony be sentenced to the maximum punishment prescribed by law. Often women prostitutes were prosecuted although their male customers were allowed to go free. In most states abortion was legal only if the mother's life was judged to be physically endangered. In 1973, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that states could not restrict a woman's right to an abortion in her first three months of pregnancy. Until well into the 20th century, women in Western European countries lived under many of the same legal disabilities as women in the United States. For example, until 1935, married women in England did not have the full right to own property and to enter into contracts on a par with unmarried women. Only after 1920 was legislation passed to provide working women with employment opportunities and pay equal to men. Not until the early 1960s was a law passed that equalized pay scales for men and women in the British civil service. WOMEN AT WORK The medical profession is an example of changed attitudes in the 19th and 20th centuries about what was regarded as suitable work for women. Prior to the 1800s there were almost no medical schools, and virtually any enterprising person could practice medicine. Indeed, obstetrics was the domain of women. Beginning in the 19th century, the required educational preparation, particularly for the practice of medicine, increased. This tended to prevent many young women, who married early and bore many children, from entering professional careers. Although home nursing was considered a proper female occupation, nursing in hospitals was done almost exclusively by men. Specific discrimination against women also began to appear. For example, the American Medical Association, founded in 1846, barred women from membership. Barred also from attending "men's" medical colleges, women enrolled in their own for instance, the Female Medical College of Pennsylvania, which was established in 1850. By the 1910s, however, women were attending many leading medical schools, and in 1915 the American Medical Association began to admit women members. In 1890, women constituted about 5 percent of the total doctors in the United States. During the 1980s the proportion was about 17 percent. At the same time the percentage of women doctors was about 19 percent in West Germany and 20 percent in France. In Israel, however, about 32 percent of the total number of doctors and dentists were women. Women also had not greatly improved their status in other professions. In 1930 about 2 percent of all American lawyers and judges were women in 1989, about 22 percent. In 1930 there were almost no women engineers in the United States. In 1989 the proportion of women engineers was only 7.5 percent. In contrast, the teaching profession was a large field of employment for women. In the late 1980s more than twice as many women as men taught in elementary and high schools. In higher education, however, women held only about one third of the teaching positions, concentrated in such fields as education, social service, home economics, nursing, and library science. A small proportion of women college and university teachers were in the physical sciences, engineering, agriculture, and law. The great majority of women who work are still employed in clerical positions, factory work, retail sales, and service jobs. Secretaries, bookkeepers, and typists account for a large portion of women clerical workers. Women in factories often work as machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors. Many women in service jobs work as waitresses, cooks, hospital attendants, cleaning women, and hairdressers. During wartime women have served in the armed forces. In the United States during World War II almost 300,000 women served in the Army and Navy, performing such noncombatant jobs as secretaries, typists, and nurses. Many European women fought in the underground resistance movements during World War II. In Israel women are drafted into the armed forces along with men and receive combat training. Women constituted more than 45 percent of employed persons in the United States in 1989, but they had only a small share of the decision-making jobs. Although the number of women working as managers, officials, and other administrators has been increasing, in 1989 they were outnumbered about 1.5 to 1 by men. Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963, women in 1970 were paid about 45 percent less than men for the same jobs; in 1988, about 32 percent less. Professional women did not get the important assignments and promotions given to their male colleagues. Many cases before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1970 were registered by women charging sex discrimination in jobs. Working women often faced discrimination on the mistaken belief that, because they were married or would most likely get married, they would not be permanent workers. But married women generally continued on their jobs for many years and were not a transient, temporary, or undependable work force. From 1960 to the early 1970s the influx of married women workers accounted for almost half of the increase in the total labor force, and working wives were staying on their jobs longer before starting families. The number of elderly working also increased markedly. Since 1960 more and more women with children have been in the work force. This change is especially dramatic for married women with children under age 6: 12 percent worked in 1950, 45 percent in 1980, and 57 percent in 1987. Just over half the mothers with children under age 3 were in the labor force in 1987. Black women with children are more likely to work than are white or Hispanic women who have children. Over half of all black families with children are maintained by the mother only, compared with 18 percent of white families with children. Despite their increased presence in the work force, most women still have primary responsibility for housework and family care. In the late 1970s men with an employed wife spent only about 1.4 hours a week more on household tasks than those whose wife was a full-time homemaker. A crucial issue for many women is maternity leave, or time off from their jobs after giving birth. By federal law a full-time worker is entitled to time off and a job when she returns, but few states by the early 1990s required that the leave be paid. Many countries, including Mexico, India, Germany, Brazil, and Australia require companies to grant 12-week maternity leaves at full pay. Traditionally a middle-class girl in Western culture tended to learn from her mother's example that cooking, cleaning, and caring for children was the behavior expected of her when she grew up. Tests made in the 1960s showed that the scholastic achievement of girls was higher in the early grades than in high school. The major reason given was that the girls' own expectations declined because neither their families nor their teachers expected them to prepare for a future other than that of marriage and motherhood. This trend has been changing in recent decades. Formal education for girls historically has been secondary to that for boys. In colonial America girls learned to read and write at dame schools. They could attend the master's schools for boys when there was room, usually during the summer when most of the boys were working. By the end of the 19th century, however, the number of women students had increased greatly. Higher education particularly was broadened by the rise of women's colleges and the admission of women to regular colleges and universities. In 1870 an estimated one fifth of resident college and university students were women. By 1900 the proportion had increased to more than one third. Women obtained 19 percent of all undergraduate college degrees around the beginning of the 20th century. By 1984 the figure had sharply increased to 49 percent. Women also increased their numbers in graduate study. By the mid-1980s women were earning 49 percent of all master's degrees and about 33 percent of all doctoral degrees. In 1985 about 53 percent of all college students were women, more than one quarter of whom were above age 29. WOMEN IN REFORM MOVEMENTS Women in the United States during the 19th century organized and participated in a great variety of reform movements to improve education, to initiate prison reform, to ban alcoholic drinks, and, during the pre-Civil War period, to free the slaves. At a time when it was not considered respectable for women to speak before mixed audiences of men and women, the abolitionist sisters Sarah and Angelina Grimke of South Carolina boldly spoke out against slavery at public meetings (see Grimke Sisters). Some male abolitionists including William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and Frederick Douglass supported the right of women to speak and participate equally with men in antislavery activities. In one instance, women delegates to the World's Anti-Slavery Convention held in London in 1840 were denied their places. Garrison thereupon refused his own seat and joined the women in the balcony as a spectator. Some women saw parallels between the position of women and that of the slaves. In their view, both were expected to be passive, cooperative, and obedient to their master-husbands. Women such as Stanton, Lucy Stone, Lucretia Mott, Harriet Tubman, and Sojourner Truth were feminists and abolitionists, believing in both the rights of women and the rights of blacks. (See also individual biographies.) Many women supported the temperance movement in the belief that drunken husbands pulled their families into poverty. In 1872 the Prohibition party became the first national political party to recognize the right of suffrage for women in its platform. Frances Willard helped found the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (see Willard, Frances). During the mid-1800s Dorothea Dix was a leader in the movements for prison reform and for providing mental-hospital care for the needy. The settlement-house movement was inspired by Jane Addams, who founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889, and by Lillian Wald, who founded the Henry Street Settlement House in New York City in 1895. Both women helped immigrants adjust to city life. (See also Addams; Dix.) Women were also active in movements for agrarian and labor reforms and for birth control. Mary Elizabeth Lease, a leading Populist spokeswoman in the 1880s and 1890s in Kansas, immortalized the cry, "What the farmers need to do is raise less corn and more hell." Margaret Robins led the National Women's Trade Union League in the early 1900s. In the 1910s Margaret Sanger crusaded to have birth-control information available for all women (see Sanger). FIGHTING FOR THE VOTE The first women's rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in July 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that "all men and women are created equal" and that "the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman." Following a long list of grievances were resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote. With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in suffrage for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women. Disagreement over the next steps to take led to a split in the women's rights movement in 1869. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, a temperance and antislavery advocate, formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in New York. Lucy Stone organized the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA) in Boston. The NWSA agitated for a woman-suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution, while the AWSA worked for suffrage amendments to each state constitution. Eventually, in 1890, the two groups united as the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). Lucy Stone became chairman of the executive committee and Elizabeth Cady Stanton served as the first president. Susan B. Anthony, Carrie Chapman Catt, and Dr. Anna Howard Shaw served as later presidents. The struggle to win the vote was slow and frustrating. Wyoming Territory in 1869, Utah Territory in 1870, and the states of Colorado in 1893 and Idaho in 1896 granted women the vote but the Eastern states resisted. A woman-suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution, presented to every Congress since 1878, repeatedly failed to pass.  Pros of Immigration: • Will work at unwanted jobs. • Immigrants are a key part of Americas economic growth. • Increasing population. • We expand the American culture into other cultures and vice-versa. • Boost the economy. Cons of Immigration: • Immigrants take jobs away from Americans. • Illegal immigrants are decreasing wages for the poor and increasing taxes. • Immigrants are threating the American identity. • Some say that immigration is going to bring the economy down. • Cheap Labor. [it puts more Americans out of their jobs.]

[dcstincd-blog]

Check out on Sworn Translations and Qualified Translations

official interpreter Prague A sworn translation is a legal doc translated into a different language that is nevertheless recognized as a lawful document after translation. In other phrases it is a translation wherever the translated document has the exact same legal validity as the first one particular. Sworn Translations are offered in the format required to be accepted in the nation anxious. This form of translation is applied mostly when working with formal letters and paperwork, such as: o Certificates o Letters of Legal professional/Mandates o Company Registration Certificates o Court Selections o Statements o Diplomas o Licenses / Permits This form of translation is also needed when any doc wants to be offered at Court or to a general public establishment. It is to be observed that while lawful devices vary from one country to one more, there are two fundamental requirements for sworn translation: (!) In "Prevalent regulation" international locations that consists of United Kingdom, most of the United states, Ireland, and some previous British colonies, the translator need to have a official qualification in translation and be equipped to affirm and show this in creating. (two)In the circumstance of "Civil legislation" nations around the world that contains Continental Europe and a lot of the relaxation of the globe the translator must not only be certified but also be registered in the pertinent place or court as a sworn translator. The most important distinction involving a sworn translation and certified translation, is that in sworn translation, the doc is signed and sealed by an licensed sworn translator and is legitimate as an official translation. However the original files can be sent by any indicates (fax, e-mail), in sworn translation the translation can only be supplied on paper as it ought to incorporate the signature and seal of a sworn translator. These days, as there is a increase in the translation services industry, the existence of a sworn translator is required in the cases when statements produced in a international language by the individuals of a assembly bear authorized outcomes. In many countries, a sworn translator is a person appointed and authorized by government departments to translate from just one or additional foreign languages into other language(s). However in some countries, a sworn translator is a qualified translator accredited to translate court docket documents. A sworn translator is authorized to make a personal translation. A sworn translator is prepared to make any form of translation, due to the fact he/she has studied not only the language, but also the tradition and attributes of a country and has been experienced in the approach of translating. Any translation produced by a sworn translator is an official document and is formally accepted by all the legal authorities as evidence. As law is a lifestyle-dependent issue area, any court docket proceedings on an international level can be affected with inaccurate or in-proper translation. In relation to global legislation, lawyers often have to deal with lawful files from a range of language sources. Consequently just one demands to comprehend the importance and requirements of sworn translation. The development in worldwide trade has contributed to an increased need for company documentation translations. In the center of the numerous forms of paperwork that one has to deal with on a each day foundation, it is ultimately sworn translation that is largely asked for.

[whatthefruk-blog]

View on Sworn Translations and Accredited Translations

interpreter Praha 1 A sworn translation is a lawful doc translated into another language that is nonetheless recognized as a legal doc following translation. In other phrases it is a translation wherever the translated document has the same authorized validity as the first 1. Sworn Translations are introduced in the structure expected to be accepted in the state anxious. This form of translation is utilised mainly when dealing with official letters and paperwork, like: o Certificates o Letters of Legal professional/Mandates o Company Registration Certificates o Court Conclusions o Statements o Diplomas o Licenses / Permits This type of translation is also needed when any document demands to be presented at Court docket or to a general public establishment. It is to be noted that even though legal methods vary from 1 state to a different, there are two basic specifications for sworn translation: (!) In "Frequent law" nations that incorporates United Kingdom, most of the Usa, Ireland, and some previous British colonies, the translator ought to have a formal qualification in translation and be able to affirm and prove this in composing. (two)In the scenario of "Civil law" international locations that includes Continental Europe and substantially of the relaxation of the globe the translator ought to not only be qualified but also be registered in the related state or court docket as a sworn translator. The most vital distinction involving a sworn translation and qualified translation, is that in sworn translation, the doc is signed and sealed by an licensed sworn translator and is legitimate as an official translation. While the authentic documents can be sent by any signifies (fax, e-mail), in sworn translation the translation can only be equipped on paper as it need to include things like the signature and seal of a sworn translator. Right now, as there is a boom in the translation assistance business, the existence of a sworn translator is needed in the instances when statements manufactured in a overseas language by the members of a meeting bear lawful consequences. In a lot of nations, a sworn translator is a person appointed and approved by federal government departments to translate from one particular or more foreign languages into other language(s). Nonetheless in some nations, a sworn translator is a accredited translator accredited to translate court docket documents. A sworn translator is approved to make a personal translation. A sworn translator is well prepared to make any kind of translation, considering that he/she has analyzed not only the language, but also the society and attributes of a country and has been trained in the approach of translating. Any translation developed by a sworn translator is an formal document and is officially accepted by all the authorized authorities as evidence. As regulation is a society-dependent topic industry, any courtroom proceedings on an international degree can be influenced with inaccurate or in-proper translation. In relation to intercontinental regulation, attorneys often have to offer with legal documents from a range of language sources. As a result 1 desires to fully grasp the value and requirements of sworn translation. The expansion in intercontinental trade has contributed to an increased need for company documentation translations. In the middle of the a lot of varieties of files that just one has to offer with on a everyday foundation, it is ultimately sworn translation that is generally questioned for.

[captainelectricworld-blog]

Watch on Sworn Translations and Qualified Translations

soudní tlumočník Praha A sworn translation is a authorized doc translated into a different language that is even now acknowledged as a legal doc immediately after translation. In other terms it is a translation exactly where the translated doc has the very same legal validity as the authentic one. Sworn Translations are introduced in the format required to be recognized in the place worried. This kind of translation is applied principally when dealing with official letters and paperwork, which include: o Certificates o Letters of Lawyer/Mandates o Company Registration Certificates o Court Conclusions o Statements o Diplomas o Licenses / Permits This type of translation is also essential when any document wants to be presented at Courtroom or to a community institution. It is to be pointed out that while legal techniques differ from a single place to one more, there are two primary specifications for sworn translation: (!) In "Typical regulation" international locations that consists of United Kingdom, most of the United states of america, Ireland, and some previous British colonies, the translator have to have a official qualification in translation and be capable to affirm and establish this in crafting. (2)In the situation of "Civil regulation" nations around the world that includes Continental Europe and considerably of the rest of the entire world the translator need to not only be qualified but also be registered in the appropriate nation or court as a sworn translator. The most important distinction among a sworn translation and licensed translation, is that in sworn translation, the document is signed and sealed by an licensed sworn translator and is legitimate as an formal translation. Although the first paperwork can be despatched by any implies (fax, e-mail), in sworn translation the translation can only be supplied on paper as it should contain the signature and seal of a sworn translator. These days, as there is a boom in the translation provider industry, the existence of a sworn translator is needed in the cases when statements made in a foreign language by the participants of a meeting bear lawful effects. In a lot of international locations, a sworn translator is a individual appointed and approved by authorities departments to translate from 1 or a lot more overseas languages into other language(s). However in some countries, a sworn translator is a certified translator accredited to translate court docket documents. A sworn translator is approved to make a private translation. A sworn translator is ready to make any type of translation, considering that he/she has studied not only the language, but also the society and traits of a country and has been educated in the procedure of translating. Any translation generated by a sworn translator is an formal document and is officially recognized by all the authorized authorities as evidence. As regulation is a lifestyle-dependent subject industry, any court proceedings on an global amount can be impacted with inaccurate or in-proper translation. In relation to intercontinental legislation, lawyers regularly have to offer with authorized paperwork from a assortment of language sources. Consequently one particular desires to recognize the value and requirements of sworn translation. The expansion in intercontinental trade has contributed to an improved demand for corporate documentation translations. In the middle of the several sorts of files that one particular has to deal with on a each day foundation, it is eventually sworn translation that is largely questioned for.