Posts Tagged ‘Faneuil Hall’

Remember the ladies: last Monday was International Women’s Day

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Today’s post is dedicated to a friend, a long-time advocate of women’s rights, who just passed away this Thursday. When I visited her in Boston last fall, she took me to Faneuil Hall and told me about Lucy Stone.

March 8. For some, the date will immediately evoke formal ceremonies of all kinds, big panel discussions about the rights of women, or maybe images of women receiving flowers. At least, this is my experience, having been exposed (treated?), on that very day for a number of years, to the presentation of a rose handed by a beaming male colleague from one of the former Soviet Republics.

For others, the 8th of March is just another day. On Monday, I jokingly wished a male colleague “Happy Women’s Day” and was met with a totally blank stare. “What is she talking about (again)?”

March 8 is International Women’s Day (IWD). When dit it start? What does it mean?

Right to vote, New York City

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Originally observed as a Socialist party event, the day has been marked since the early 1900’s. A National Woman’s Day was observed across the United States on 28 February 1909. A year later, at an International Conference of Working Women held in Copenhagen, German Social Democrat Clara Zetkin proposed that the day be marked internationally on the same day.  The first official IWD was honoured in 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March with rallies advocating the rights of women to work, vote, vocational training, and hold public office.

Less than a week later, on 25 March, in New York, 140 working immigrant working girls lost their lives in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The tragic event has been commemorated during subsequent IWDs and led to more attention being given to labour legislation and working conditions in the United States.

In 1913-1914, women rallied for peace in Russia and all over Europe, and the date retained to mark IWD was 8 March. With more than two million soldiers dead in the war, Russian women in 1917 started a strike for bread and peace, which four days later resulted in the Czar’s abdication. The provisional government established to run the country immediately granted women the right to vote.

Until the 1960s, IWD was mostly observed in Socialist Europe, when it was revived in the West with the rise of feminism. The United Nations has been officially marking the day since 1975 to recognize the struggles of women worldwide to be granted political and civil rights.

Such struggles have taken many forms. With her famous Remember the ladies, Abigail Adams in 1776 invited her husband, John Adams, one of the Massachussets delegates to the Continental Congress, to take into account the interests of women, when drafting the American Declaration of Independence, or else…

…remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

In last year’s post on IWD, in addition to Abigail Adams, I also mentioned Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft. This year, I would like to feature another early day suffragist: Lucy Stone. 

Lucy Stone, Faneuil Hall, Boston

Lucy Stone, Faneuil Hall, Boston

The first woman from Massachusetts to earn a college degree (in 1839), Lucy Stone is also the first American woman to retain her maiden name after marriage, leading to the late 19th Century term a “Lucy Stoner”. An abolitionist and a suffragist, Lucy Stone spent her life fighting for women’s rights. She is also the only woman to be honoured in Boston’s Faneuil Hall.

In 1858, to protest taxation without representation, she refused to pay property taxes on her home. On the 100th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, in December 1873, she called for a New England Women Tea Party in Faneuil Hall in Boston and told the crowd that attended the meeting:

We are taxed, and we have no representation. We are governed without our consent. We are fined, imprisoned, and hung with no jury trial by our peers. We have no legal right to our children, nor power to sell our land, nor will our money.”

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Almost a century and a half after  the New England Women Tea Party, one decade into a new millennium, where do we stand? This week, a text was given to me by a 23-year old for posting on Rights from the Start.  It is included below and provides a young European woman’s perspective on the status of women’s rights today.

Women’s day.

Today is the 8th of March. Does it mean anything to you? Well, I must admit that it also took me a few years to realize that this was a very special event as it is… International Women’s day!

And every year I ask myself why there has to be a special day to remind the world that women have to be treated equally to men.

In 1791, French activist Olympe de Gouge wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women. Her purpose in writing such a text was not only to affirm that women had/have the same rights as men (article 1) but also to fight to obtain new ones.

This was 219 years ago, and yet it’s impossible to affirm today that women’s rights are respected.

From an historical perspective, we can distinguish between two categories of women in this world. The ones lucky enough to be born with a set of rights recognized to them and the ones that
still have to fight for those rights. But in the end, both categories are threatened.

If the last generations gained many powerful rights, such as the right to vote, to own a bank account, divorce, abortion, birth control or just work, new generations have to fight to retain these rights. This is true for the lucky women category. The other category still has a long way to go. The opportunity to study and work is still a luxury for a number of women. And, being able to represent themselves is to this day only a dream for many others.

What frightens me the most today is not the fact that there’s still a lot to do, because fighting to gain something is always a positive motivation to obtain new opportunities; it is more that we might lose all the chances that we had to fight for over so many years.

Let’s take the right to abortion for instance. If it took a long time to obtain, and mostly to accept, it’s not a given any longer. In Italy, if women can freely ask for an abortion, the physician is always entitled to a « droit de regard » and can refuse to perform such an act if it is against his/her convictions. And I’m absolutely devastated when I hear politicians (and most of the time women politicians) saying that abortion should be prohibited again. Here, I cannot help myself from thinking that, it’s not homo homini lupus but women who are dangerous to women.

When will we stop religion beliefs to influence our choices? When will we be entirely free to dispose of our body?

As for the right to vote or to work, if it is absolutely obvious nowadays, women are still underrepresented, not only in politics but also in the work place. And, when women succeed in reaching higher responsibility jobs they will always be submitted to higher pressure than their male colleagues. Not only should we be clever and efficient, we should also be beautiful, a good mother, a good wife when we shouldn’t also be a good cook or house hostess! And all this without even being guaranteed to have the same salary as our dear males.

But, you got it, this is for group number one, the shiny group. Our second group, as I said, has a long way to go. The right to be educated should be the priority for everyone in this world. This is our only way to have wings and to be able to progress not only in the public but also in the private arenas.

Every woman in this world should have the possibility to be educated, to study, to work, to be a mother, to refuse to be one, in one word: to gain independence. Choice shouldn’t be a luxury.

And for all of these reasons, we cannot use the 8th of March as the only day to claim and fight for our rights. Every single day has to be a fight for freedom and equality.

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Sugar, tea and sweet liberty

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

In some countries, it was salt - the French Cahiers de doleances famously illustrated the unpopularity of the gabelle tax, which eventually contributed to sparking the French Revolution -, in others it was sugar, in some it was tea. 

The Boston Tea Party is equally famous for having signalled the beginning of the American Revolution. To better understand the importance of the event - which involved the destruction of many crates of tea in the Boston harbour on Thursday, December 16, 1773 - it is useful to look back at how the taste for tea developed, and at the relationship between a scarce product and heavy taxation.

Interestingly, since both played a role in a revolution, salt and tea have had a similar history. According to an Arabian traveler, duties on salt and tea were the main sources of revenue in 9th Century Canton, China. After having established a trading port in Macau, in 1557, the Portuguese discovered and reported the existence of a Chinese drink called “chá”, but it is only in the early 17th century that a Dutch East India Company ship returning from China brought back the first green tea leaves to Amsterdam - an event which eventually contributed to the development of the tea culture in Europe.

Chinese and English teapots, 18th Century

It was a Portuguese princess, Catarina de Bragança, who, when she married King Charles II of England in 1662, brought to the English court the habit of drinking tea. Promoted as a medicinal beverage or a tonic, tea rapidly gained popularity in aristocratic circles.

Back in China, the tea trade was controlled by two monopolies: the Chinese Hongs and the British East India Company. Trade between Britain and China was going strong, but ships bringing English-made fabrics to India and China were returning only partially full. Tea had obvious potential and the East India Company initiated a campaign that popularized tea throughout Britain, making it a viable return cargo.

Sugarbowl, 18th Century

Sugarbowl, 18th Century

While the tea trade rapidly grew in England between 1690 and 1750, the cane sugar trade was facing a similar increase. A sweetened tea cup quickly became a daily necessity, resulting in rival companies being established to import tea from the East Indies.

In 1698, the East India Company was granted monopoly over tea importation, while the British colonies were required by a 1721 Act  to exclusively import their tea from Great Britain, thereby ensuring a steady source of income through the duties imposed on tea. This income was however challenged by smuggled Dutch tea which was serious competition to the highly-taxed legal tea.

Looking for additional revenue, the Parliament decided to enact a law allowing direct taxation on the colonies, including on tea. Colonists did not have direct representation through elected Parliament members: taxation without representation was rapidly perceived as unfair. Protests and boycotts started, with many colonists pledging to abstain from drinking British tea, while alternatives were being sought.

In spite of protest, additional tax legistlation was passed, including the 1767 Townshend Revenu Act: it was repelled in 1770, with the exception of duty on tea. Tea imports continued and Boston quickly became the largest colonial importer of legal tea: meanwhile the smuggled tea trade was also flourishing.  

A 1772 change in taxes brought yet another burden on the tea trade, with a new Tea Act, enacted on 10 May. With that, the market value of legally imported tea had become cheaper than smuggled tea by one penny per pound. The Act called for a system of consignees, colonial merchants who received tea on consigment and would sell tea for a commission, who were appointed in New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Charleston. Monopoly of the tea trade was given to the East India Company.

A protest movement, led by Whigs - who sometimes called themselves the Sons of Liberty -  quickly developed against the Tea Act, and in Philadelphia and New York, consignees were forced to resign, while tea shipments were being returned to England.

Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA

Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA

In Boston, however, Governor Hutchinson convinced consignees, two of whom were his sons, not to resign. Samuel Adams, a Whig leader, convened a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall on 29 November 1773. The meeting called for the Captain of the tea-carrying Dartmouth and two other ships to go back to England without delivering the tea and paying the import duty, which normally would have to be paid within 20 days of arrival. The Governor forbade the Captain to leave without paying the duties. On December 16, the issue was resolved when, following another meeting convened by Adams, a group of men - some of whom were disguised as Mohawks - boarded the ships and dumped the tea in the harbour.

Punished with the closing of the Boston harbour and the passing of the Coercive Acts, the event served to unite all parties in Britain against the colonies. Meanwhile, the reaction in the colonies varied: while Benjamin Franklin suggested that the value of the destroyed tea be repaid, others rallied around the fight for independence, which eventually led to the adoption in 1776 of the Declaration of Independence.

Paul Revere teapot, milk pot and spoons, 1773

Paul Revere teapot, milk pot and spoons, 1773

Famous patriot and silversmith Paul Revere, the son of French Huguenot Apollos Rivoire, produced for Bostonian wealthy families numerous silver services that included teapots, milk pots, tea spoons and tea tongues. Interestingly, in the portrait of Revere painted by his friend John Singleton Copley in 1768, it is a teapot that Copley decided to feature as the most emblematic of the silversmith’s craft, while that year, in support of the tea boycott, Revere only crafted one teapot. 

It is only in 1778 that the Tea Act was repealed with the Taxation of Colonies Act.

The Boston Tea Party is one of the more famous episodes of the fight against unfair taxation. In 1930, following the Indian salt protest campaign, Gandhi used duty-free salt to remind the British Viceroy of the Massachusetts event.