tv 19th Amendment Voting Rights Foreign Relations CSPAN August 24, 2019 1:59pm-3:41pm EDT
over 30 years, agricultural workers have labored to eradicate diseases. the demonstration work out long grown into a nationwide extension service. at this map shows the status of this work among knee grows in 1937. there are over 225 agricultural agents and 175 home this -- demonstration agents now working for better farming and living among southern egos. andy smith born in africa long past per 110 year when she to see the7 lived hard work of her generation and that of her children better by his campaign. you can watch our films on public affairs in their entirety on our weekly series "reel
america," sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern, only on american history tv. >> next, from the society for of american formulation annual conference, 99 years after the 19th amendment. the audiencens in to discuss the influence women have had on foreign relations it's obtaining the vote in 1920. coming toou for this panel, 99 years after the 19th amendment. , and you to our panelists caitlin mystery and jason x 10, who put this panel together and where the cochairs of the conference program committee, and are responsible for the wonderful program we will be enjoying over the next few days. thek you as well to
cosponsors of this event, the coordinating council for women the history and american studies department at the george washington university. scientists tell us that women played a bigger role in the 2018 elections than they had in any other election in american history. a record number of women are running for office, taking up seats in congress, and heading out on the presidential campaign trail. the trends that led to this are clear. women have long made up the majority of the electorate, more women than men have voted in every election since 1964. and it's 1980, there has been an appreciable and rowing gender gap in how those votes are cast. despite these trends, women continue to be underrepresented and in many cases severely underrepresented in positions of power and leadership. even with a record shattering number of women who join congress after the 2018 midterms, women still comprise
less than a quarter of voting members. women of caller makeup almost a historic 9% of congress. makeup 20% of the u.s. population. as we grapple with the events of the current moment and the gender politics unfolding before us, and as we approach the centennial of women's average, it is like a fitting moment to reflect on the history of women's political participation and representation, as well as reflect on the consequences of disenfranchisement and underrepresentation, and in particular for our purposes, the consequences this has had on u.s. foreign relations and american engagements for the world and how, as historians, we write about that history. we will try something for this ornt, which could go great fail spectacularly. we will find out. we will do a talk show format. i am not opera, there are no prizes under your seats, unfortunately, but i will
introduce the panelists and ask them a couple of questions to get them started. hopefully they will then engage with each other and ask each other questions, and we hope to have the audience involved, commenting, asking questions from early on in the session in order -- session. in order to facilitate this, we have -- what would you call them? wrestlers? runners? wranglers. if you would like to get a question, they will come to you in the appropriate break in the conversation, and we will let you have the war. if you are going to participate, you should know c-span is recording this, if that factors in your participation. [laughter] to say if you are interested in this topic, it has just been decided that the 2020 institutear -- shaker will be on women in the world, so this might be the beginning of a conversation that can continue. also, when we are finished with this, join us for a reception right out there on
the second-floor lobby area, so we can continue the conversation there as well. let me introduce our panelists. have keisha blain, an associate professor of history at the university of pit bird and editor in chief of the north star. she currently serves as president of the african-american intellectual his three society. her research interests include black internationalism, politics, and global feminism. blain is the author of the award-winning book "set the world on fire: black nationalist women and the global struggle thefreedom," which is from university of pennsylvania press last year in 2018. she is also the co-author of a number of other important works, including the charlestown syllabus, readings on race, racism, and racial violence. she is currently working on a book tentatively entitled east united with best, black women, japan, and visions of afro-asian solidarity, also under contract with the university of
pennsylvania press. next we have the professor of history at m.i.t. in the foreign editor for modern american history. he is the author of the prize-winning book "uncle sam wants you: world war i and the making of the modern american citizen, which came out with oxford, and the hotly anticipated and seriously "bound by war: how the united states and philippines build the first specifics century." he is also co-curator of the volunteers, americans during for one, a public history initiative commemorating the centennial of the first world war, and he has done a number of other public history initiatives, including appearing on the history detectives and who do you think you are. are inearch interests the history of citizenship, war, and the military in modern u.s. has three. next we have joann marilyn's, of professor of
history and american studies at yale university. she is also the president of the organization for american historians and director of the yale research initiative on the history of sexuality areas or interests are 20th-century u.s. history, general sexuality, and local poverty. she is the author of "women from chicago press, and a history of transsexuality in the united data from harvard university. she is also finishing a book manuscript right now on the 1970's and 1980's, ted -- tentatively titled a war on global poverty, the u.s. development and the politics of gender. last but not least, we have the professor at the university of california irvine. she is the outgoing chair of the asian american studies department and the incoming director of the university of california's humanities center. i am tired from reading these biographies. i cannot even imagine doing all this work.
she is the author of several she co-edits a book press, entering the transpacific world, diaspora, empire, and race, as well as the women and social movements in the united dates online resource for u.s. women's history. she is currently working on a of theal biography, first women of color u.s. congressional representative and the cosponsor of title ix. she is doing that book in gwendolynion with ming. please welcome these distinguished scholars. [applause] ok, for our first question, women are 51% of the population. ,n the past and in the present
they are vastly underrepresented in the halls of power. but we think -- we know, thanks in no small part to the panelists here, women have been active participants in foreign affairs. i would like the panelists to start by talking about what contributions of women need to be highlighted and stressed in the history of u.s. foreign relations? we will work our way from the and and you guys can mix of your order. judy? that i amally nervous being taped for television, and of course i get to go first. [laughter] in manyo underscore ways the absence of women in relations --matic formal diplomatic relations, and would like to quote a letter from someone who did not consider herself a feminist, but cosponsored discrimination, title ix.
and alls a delegation, women's delegation of congresswoman travels to the people's republic of china. hisas unprecedented to have number of women go abroad as official representatives of their nation as to lobby for she wrote aion, five-page letter to the speaker of the house and did a thorough analysis of how men dominated congress. it came down to who got to knock the gavel, the came down the pages, who got appointments in the prize committees and the chair ships of these committees? one thing she put forth i thought was really interesting. she was appalled that no president had ever appointed a woman to any meeting on peace negotiations with one exception, and after she issued this paper, there was one other woman who on assued and delegated delegation. she says, surely the women of this country are as concerned
about war and peace, as are the men. to answer this question of, where do we look for women and in what ways are ideas about gender and sexuality important for us to think about in terms of international relations, i want to make four points. now that i am older. look for women. first, we need to look for women who are in formal positions of leadership. while in congress, the first woman of color to go into congress was a key critic of the vietnam war, when johnson was in office. this was a leader of her political party, not someone -- just of the cheated when nixon was in office. ishink the fact that she from hawaii really shaped the way she thought about the world and thought about military and political issues in the pacific.
she also worked under carter and the state department, in charge of oceans, international and environmental affairs and scientific affairs. we can look beyond the presidents and the secretaries of state and look at women in other forms of political power. political roles of leadership. look at the congress and the assistant secretaries of state. various feminist scholars say we need to look at women beyond the formal roles of leadership. we need to look at the wives, assistance, people who have kinship ties to men and political power that they can influence and shape the type of political relationships they have internationally and domestically. a third aspect of looking for women in international diplomacy , look at them in nongovernmental organizations and social movements. if you look at the u.s. missionary movement abroad, two thirds of those individuals are women. a third of them were married to men, a third of them were single , but they were, in essence,
american diplomats in the field. negotiating with people abroad they are ways, spiritual beliefs, the way they are arranging their homes and raising their children. which you aren interacting with people and cultures abroad. aboutrly, you might think the women's movement and the ways we are advocating either for peace or war, but they are forming social networks, social organizations that transcends a domestic understanding of their roles at home. need to i think we think about everyday behavior, whether they think about them as political or not. when people are crossing borders, engaging international interracial marriages, adopting across borders. these are all individual acts that have policy implications. things that state governments, militaries have to manage. so these are some ways i think we might find within
international affairs and diplomacy, and i will end by thinking about ways in which a gendered understanding of again, four different ways we might think about this, could shape the way we study the field. we might think about gender representations of power, the ways in which japan is gendered or think aboutd, the relationship with the philippines. there are various ways in which these racialized gender understandings of power are shaping the way that american andomats, ambassadors foreign state actors are understanding the world around them. i think a second aspect is about the management of gender roles, and i think the scholarship on intimacy and empire is helping us thinking about -- think about the ways in which fate, government, empire, military unit, are thinking about the ways in which people are crossing borders through intimacy and sexuality.
that are foreign problems need to be solved by people in positions of power. i have beenct thinking about, and i love the phrase "the military sexual complex." you can think about the ways in which the military fought through certain forms of sexual behaviors or institutions that are inherent, in part, to the ways that which militaries are stationed abroad. you might think about sexuality as a weapon of war or the culture of sexuality within the military and without the military. ofnk about the local economy prostitution and the ways in which sexuality is surrounding military institutions. finally, i will end here by thinking about the gendered motivations for war and peace. dating brown women from brown men and how that motivates white men and women to intervene abroad. how humanitarian rescue becomes a base for imperial military rule. and also the location of
womanhood, childhood, maternal is in either as justification for war or justification for peace. i love seeing these representations of what i call these madonnas during the u.s. war in vietnam. women andietnamese children. in some cases they are in abject suffering, and that is why there has to be american intervention abroad. whether it is a military intervention or peace intervention. there are also counter images of these women as peasants, as little fires in which they are seeking to protect their nations and families through armed struggle. at theseg representations, you can really understand the ways in which gender and sexuality and women interpenetration of foreign. thank you. penetrate -- interpenetrate the foreign. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone.
i want to start by saying the absence or per her -- perhaps more accurately marginalization of women in history of foreign relations or international relations is not a reflection of the history, per of but more so a reflection the work that we do as historians. my point here that i do not want to conflate what i think is a done, of the work we have the topics we have chosen to pursue and the way we have chosen to pursue those topics with the actual realities on the ground. women were very much at the forefront of many of the political movement that we are even talking about today, and even when i say forefront, not but atrily even visible, the forefront to emphasize the
point that they were fully involved, that they were fully active, that they were critical thinkers and organizers and they were shapers and movers of this history, yet for a range of reasons that, of course, reflect the patriarchal society in which we live, historians collectively, i think, have really focused so much on the work of men that in so doing we, and i take ownership -- collectively as historians, we have produced the kinds of books that send a message to students, that send a message to foreign -- send the message far and wide that in fact, these political movements are male-dominated movements, even when the reality on the ground is quite different. i think that distinction needs to be made, because part of
answering the question of what do we do, the first thing we need to do is be intentional about the way we write these histories. i do mean intentional. i do mean not simply sitting down, for example, to talk about the global dimensions of black power, as an example, and simply going to the same archives that are already biased because of how they are constructed. not just along the lines of gender, but along the lines of race, right? relying on those archives and telling a narrative based on those same forces that already are misconstrued, repeating a narrative and not pushing back, even pushing back against the archive. so i think part of what needs to happen is that we have to be intentional. we have to be willing to push beyond even the sources that we hold so dear.
so value, as ii know all of you do, the archives. but we have to come to the archives with a kind of then pushes us to imagine, what are the other kinds of sources we ought to be using in order to get to a more fuller understanding of the history? in order to get to women's voices, in order to get to women's political activities. it is a reframing and sort of an adjustment in our thinking, which i think is fundamental to the work that we do, and we are able to really capture the nuance of this history and to tell a more balanced story when we push against all of these barriers that i think are very much indicative in the archive. the other thing i will say is on the matter of class, what should we be doing, and who should we be emphasizing.
i would like to see a push beyond these frameworks of talking about intellectuals, solely talking about individuals ,ho have formal education solely talking about individuals who are members of the middle class and delete, and to push those boundaries, to grapple with what it means to be a critical thinker in any moment of u.s. history and not necessarily have access to all of these tools. what does an intellectual look like? they simply did not have an opportunity to read all of these important text we hold so dear. what does it mean to be an intellectual with only a third grade education? what does it mean to be an intellectual living in poverty and only being able to rely on, for example, letters within a community to disperse knowledge? these are the kinds of questions
that i think are important and the kind of things that i think are crucial for, again, telling a more fuller and certainly more nuanced story about politics, not just on a national level but certainly global politics. thank you. [applause] >> so let me start by saying thank you to broke and jay and caitlin for organizing this panel, and thank you to the two people who have spoken before me . i could just say ditto and pass it on to chris. underscore what has been said so far, and also maybe add a couple of other points you are. i think when we are looking for women's voices and contributions , especially in the history of foreign relations, we obviously ofe to move beyond the kinds records that we might find in the national archives are
foreign relations of the united date. that obviously isn't enough. what historians have been doing for the past decade or so, i think, has been mostly looking ,t transnational organizations at religious movements, social movements, and finding the women who are quite powerful within them. have, as judy mentioned, missionaries, women's rights activists, antiwar activists, anti-nuclear activists, pan pan-american-ists, women who have been quite active in creating transnational, global networks and connecting the global north and global south. and we have written quite a bit about them already. about the lila spoke world to women, the international suffrage movement, i think about the work doris is
doing now on the international labor movement and social democratic feminist, internationally. eileen boris on the international labor organization. we have work that is being done on the united nations. catherine marino's new book that looks that sort of a popular front, latin american, u.s. interconnection on human rights and how they informed definitions of human rights in the u.n.. we have a lot of the work that is being done. we also have work that is being done on more radical kinds of networks that we connected across the globe in women's organizations and in women working with organizations with men, and i think of the work judy has done or keisha has done in looking at some of those more radical movements, the radical internationalism. i think that is some place to find the voices of women, and that is something we can also wants do, but i
to, as historians that are mostly liberal and left ourselves, to be honest, i want us not to just be celebratory there also acknowledge are transnational conservative movements in which women have been quite active. anti-communism, anti-oneworld is him, anti-u.n., these are movements in which women have been active as well as men -- the john birch society, fascist organizations, and that should be recognized as well. some historians are doing that. i know a historian at rutgers right now is looking at some of the women who are quite active and very conservative politics in the 1970's, 1980's, and people who have done this as well. we need to do that. the most obvious example is know herhapley, we most prominently because of her thefeminist activism in 1970's and after, but she cut
her teeth and one her fame by being anti-communist and anti-oneworld is, and that is another history where we find women speaking to foreign relations and actually having put money into foreign relations influencing. come back to what judy said about paternalism, i think that is another place that we have looked at as historians mostly in terms of domestic issues and that it is also very important to think about in terms of women's activism in foreign relations paternalism is a tur -- maternal is him -- something used when women used their position as mothers in politics. ists could be
antiwar activists, and they could be engaged in a global campaign to fight infant mortality as mothers, you know, we have to applaud that. who wants infant mortality? those are ways in which a political valence of that that we might applaud, but grabbedism also reads racial hierarchies, civilizational hierarchies and took on and abetted imperialism. white mothers and dark races, the title of one book. some formulations judy mentioned, saving brown women so it alsomen, involves these hierarchies and fantasies of rescue, and that is part of what we need to listen for as well when we are looking for women's voices. i think emily rosenberg told us this years ago in an article on
there is a fine withhere with solidarity women overseas and hierarchical fantasies of rescue. one or two more points. back to judy's point on leadership, i think we can look for women leaders, especially if we are looking after the 1970's. we can find some women leaders earlier, of course, but if we are looking in the halls of power, after 1970 we find more and more of them. madeleine, we have all right, condoleezza rice, hillary clinton, women who are right up there in the traditional halls of power we can be looking at when we are looking for women's voices. finally, i want to talk about women not only as agents and voices in foreign relations -- judy mentioned this as well -- but objects of international relations.
foreign relations is an interesting window, i think, into the management of population and how people -- it is a pretty clear window, sometimes, into how people in power imagine they might improve populations. women are often, or sometimes, at least, the objects of those programs. clearly, in forms of population control, women were seen as the targets of programs. the way to improve the population was to lower fertility or the birth rate. ofen became the object foreign relations. i am studying that in the foreign development movement and in the 1970's, where women activists were saying the way to improve a population, some imagined, were to bring women
in as income generators in poor nations. ways ofe imagined improving populations, and i think that is another way we should be looking at women in foreign relations. [applause] >> all right. i would also like to thank the panelists and bank broke -- thank brooke and jay for putting this together, and thank them for doing it this year instead of next, because we get to get out ahead of the centennial ratification of the 19th amendment and maybe ensure that our conversations about that centennial are a little better than they would be if we arrived at that party at the last minute. i am going to back up to this of the 19th amendment and
also of the first world war, and flag that this is going to be a difficult centennial for most american history and the stories we tell about it, because, of course, the ratification of the 19th amendment was a dramatic expansion of democracy, but as we know, a rather limited one that included with it exclusions and limitations. i could talk more about that later, but i also think it is difficult because it is an expansion of rights and freedoms that is deeply and fundamentally intertwined with war and militarism. i think we need to sort of understand the role of women not only in the expansion of women's , butge -- women's suffrage women in the first world war. and we will do that in our good historian ways and talk about
andie chapman, alice paul the national women's party, and we can reiterate those kinds of stories and the choices that those organizations made during world war i about the war itself and about the centrality of suffrage to the war and its meaning. i also think it is important that we see just how fundamental to the antiwar movement as well. if we go all the way back, i will talk for a second here about jane adams, who i think is certainly a familiar name to everyone in this room, but is right for reanalysis in this moment of the centennial. of course, if you go back to newer ideals of peace from 1907 -- this was a book that introduces the concept of what she called physic housekeeping, also called municipal housekeeping or large
housekeeping. wen we talk about this, often frame this as a fundamentally domestic political enterprise, progressivism and urban reform and so forth. if you read the very first words of the book, she notes "these studies and the gradual developments of the moral beenitutes for war have made in the industrial quarter of a cosmopolitan city. where the morality exhibits market social and international aspects. it is important to see that much of what we have framed as women's domestic politics in the early 20th century america was already fundamentally global as well. similarly, we cannot really disentangle the formation of the women's peace party in 1915 from the suffrage movement out of which it emerged. it comes from the international women's suffrage movement and their efforts to convene meetings in 1914 and 1915.
we can see this as well in the platforms and statements of the international congress of women at the hague in 1915, which if you are not teaching about that in your history of u.s. foreign relations class, you are not doing a good job as a teacher. i will discuss to aspects about this. one gets to the question of , where the women of the hague say they flag women's peculiar moral passion of revolt against both the cruelty and the waste of war. is worth thinking about at essentialism and introducing as a concept of a sensualism, but if you read it carefully, you will see it is somewhat strategic essentialism. situated knowledge of women who through war, devastation, humanitarian crises , and were bearing burdens of those that gave them this kill your moral passion, something
that they sometimes phrased as biological and essential, but was, in fact, emerging from the experience of 1914 and 1915. second, at the hague, you see a claim that women want a share in deciding between war and peace, right? that is what i see as a fundamentally political claim to decision making not only in domestic politics, but in foreign relations as well, right? in doing so, not only through civil society of ngos, but through the formal political processes, the access to the ballot in the countries with fundamental not only to domestic politics, but international politics as well. so all of these things need to get rethought in the context of the centennial. centennial of inclusion democraticon, and
rights and militarism. and i think we run the risk of doing it the wrong way if we sort of let a simple narrative about right expand in wartime taking over. the 19th amendment was a hard-fought battle that involved soment repression and savvy organizations to over, and achieve. suggestif we merely that right expand and war presents opportunity for expansion, we run the risk of participating in what richard hofstadter once called the literature of natural self congratulation. i think it is very important that as we move to the suffrage centennial that we as historians make this centennial more difficult than it might otherwise be for people who are marking it. and the century since then, we can think about that as well.
[applause] >> thank you, that was really great. i want to pick up on something that all of you touched on, and i think keisha really hit it on she coulds strong as have, which is the logic of the archive and thinking about who gives them the archives and which archives will it go to in the world of u.s. foreign relations and in the world, there is a very, very strong gravitation towards the state department records and record group 59, 84, maybe if you are going to be really out there, right? there is something about the dominance of that and the collection within this particular field that maybe makes women harder to find that in domestic political history, where maybe there is not such a set sense about which archive is the archive. i am wondering if you all have thoughts on the ongoing problems
for the researcher in pushing back against the archive or thinking about other avenues and maybehistory thinking about if there are scholars in the audience who want to be more invested in this but do not really know where they can go, what are your thoughts about the challenges of the research and what would you suggest? any order you would like? the librarying in of congress, with 2000 boxes of material. i do not think there is a lack of material out there. i think it is an excuse that there are no materials because there is a plethora of materials. that is part of our job as historians, to be imaginative on how to find ways into the past. so even if you have letters from one male head of state to another male head of state, there is language in there about the ways in which they are
understanding power, right? i think it is more about our analytical lenses as historians and the people who are in power have lots of paper that we can trackback historically. >> i would emphasize to the importance of using a variety of sources as much as possible, and ofhink i am always weary encountering engaging studies that draw solely on either one or two archive collections or records, and it theot to dispute significance of those records, but i think part of what has to happen is that you sort of approach these records, you understand that they are able to give you a glimpse into a subject or shed light on one aspect, but to always remember that it is truly one aspect.
one of the ways that i have really grappled with this is to try as much as possible to think of, well, where are the other places i might look that would give me a different perspective? for example, utilizing newspapers, newspaper articles. even with newspaper articles we understand the limitations. always say, approached every single force with skepticism. i think that is the best way to do rigorous kind of research and to never truly trust any source. but to figure out what you can get from it in order to pull together and to see them as clues or as building blocks in able to tell a larger story. you might pull from the state department archive, for example, and you might match that with newspaper articles, with personal letters, you might push incorporatery to
oral histories, and i know even that raises questions and should., as they every source has its strengths and limitations, but to collectively pull all of these together is one good approach in order to avoid the trap of relying so heavily on one kind of source where you ultimately replicate the same kinds of narrative, which tends to be anduline, not surprisingly, would also tend to give you a perspective that overlooks oftentimes the experiences of ofl of color -- people color. even as we are talking about the 19th amendment, it is important to think about, what are the voices? what about black women in the united states and what are they saying about it? across theack women african diaspora saying about it and how might we talk about it in a way that is not solely through the lens of one particular group in the united dates and one particular racial
group, and how do we get to the kinds of perspective that may very well, out of, as i said earlier, a working-class or working for perspective? the intentionality is key. when you are asking both questions at the beginning of your research, you set out to find the answers as best as you can, and it gives you room to really be creative and somewhat flexible in your strategies in order to find the answers. i hope that is helpful. ditto.n, up here person who is oldest and cannot member when women's history was emerging as a subfield and remembered that foreign relations was the hardest nut to crack. that was the field where it seemed almost impossible to bring in women's history or
gender history, and if you are trying to be a traditional foreign policy historian you would be scraping around to find anna rosenberg, who was assistant secretary of defense in the early 1950's, and that was maybe all you could find to incorporate women. then joe scott came along with gender, a useful category of historical analysis, t open.cked the nu she brought in the language of gender, which has already been mentioned here, but that led to this spectacular flowering of very traditional, using very traditional foreign policy sources, bringing in issues of gender. rotter,of work by andy authors, robert dean, the list could go on from
there, but these were people who and in defining gender very traditional sources the language of gender, and it turns u.s.t was implicated in military implications in the application -- occupation of into, getting the u.s. vietnam, certain masculinity, and the language of gender was --te important in fighting finding allies or enemies and casting them as weak or strong, rapacious or charming, and the masculine eye thing and feminizing of other nations was quite important in the language of foreign policy. due to that pay particular literature, which used very traditional sources that came at them in a new way. now i think we are moving into another phase, not moving into a -- not moving away from that, but moving into another layer of what we already have here and finding voices of women in
organizations, these international organizations -- we have been talking about global networks, ngos, and so on. we are suddenly discovering women have been there -- we knew women had been there all along, but we are broadening our archive in order to find them. that means going into organizational records, and there are lots of them. it means going into the personal papers of people who, you know -- or are so many archival collections out there that have barely been touched. means, you know, i have used the ngo care at the new york public library, the records at the ford foundation, i have used records at the national archives as well, but they were not the richest records that i found. it was going into people's personal papers, and some people collected and kept in their actuall records
government documents that are not available at the national archive, and it is really important to branch out and look for some of these other kinds of collections where the people you things thatollected are quite amazing and that could be oral histories and newspapers, of course, as well. >> i would add one more thing, which is part of what we need to do is maybe expand from the state department to the state, especially if you work on the 20th century, the proliferation of state power necessarily and men,both women people of all genders, to sort of engaged with the state. and you can find them writing petitions, very ordinary people who do not otherwise appear in historical records are suddenly there and making arguments about power, often because they want access to resources. what that means is it sometimes requires you to get out of your
own sort of archival habits, right? if you are mostly a diplomatic person, you might find yourself reading military records or welfare state records , and those can be a little daunting at first, but the cure is to read more of them. >> caitlin, who do you have for us? dawn and iame is teach intro to women's history. this last fall i was teaching the 19th amendment during the midterm election. my students are so disenchanted with voting. they do not care. when i asked to was going to vote, they all said meh. extended disinterest to the historical part of it, right? they found the 19th amendment and the history of women's
suffrage uninteresting because they did not see it as one of the crucial issues of their time now. tocourse, you do things counteract that, but there is only so much. what kind ofn is, strategies can we bring to our teaching of the 19th amendment to complicate it and make it relevant to them? it seems obvious to us, perhaps, but clearly it is not translating, necessarily. thank you. >> i can tell you a story from one of my classes, where i had the same thing. students seemed very disenchanted with voting. i started to prod that, to see what is the source of this? as i got them to talk more and more about it, they said well, there are so many more baby boomers than us that our votes do not count. they do not matter. i broke out the graph, because if you actually show them demographically -- i said if you come out, you will run things. that seems to really change the mood of the room.
i wonder if there are some social there it is out there maynd voting that have been be making them feel like they actually don't have the power that they do have. another one, this is a historical story to, is the way that we tell history. we tell histories of adults and we often exclude children and youth, said they do not hear stories about their own empowerment enough, and i am wondering if thinking more about that -- the underrepresentation of young people in our histories would maybe also help with that kind of thing. >> that is a great question. i have several thoughts. one is that when i talk about suffrage, i emphasize not just the militarism and ask illusion, but the issues of empire, right? justification for white women of the suffrage was at the expense of nonwhite individuals and imperial subjects.
very explicit in terms of the rhetoric. i point out it is a tool that is limited in its application. at the same time, it is incredibly powerful. so i am studying a congresswoman and trying to reclaim the tradition of political liberalism, which is heavily under attack by people on the left, because they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. now,is not just something but historically, she was in office in the mid-60's into the late 70's and again in 1990, 2002, but that was an era of mass social liberation movements. are 200%e saying, you american. what do you think you can accomplish? you will be another cause in the political machine. i have to make an argument that being in politics really matters. pamelaal scientist paxton and melanie hughes talk about the three forms of citizenship. one is formal.
do people have the formal right to vote? today have political rights? -- do they have political rights? then there is representative. if you have the vote, can you change the composition of the people in positions of power? as brooke was pointing out, 100 years after suffrage, women constitute barely 25% of congress and have not cracked the grass -- glass ceiling in other realms. final round is substantive, women's issues, a very ideas, and set of women are very diverse politically. but our women's issues being represented? i think we can critique what int represents, especially light of sexual understandings of identity. her political career, i point out how important it is for someone like her to be in congress, a woman in color -- a woman of color, from the
hawaiian islands, that connection to the pacific, that made a crucial difference in a number of debates. and even if she did not always there, and there were multiple times in which having that one vote didn't matter. it is not just an individual story, because it is not just about her being able to exercise her political power in congress, but she is working in conjunction with these social movements to try to change the discourse, because women do not have 51% of political representation, but they can influence the political process through protest, through facebook campaigns, along with being in positions of power where they can vote on legislation and try to straight does -- shape those positions. i do not know if any of that will resonate, but i tried to explain why this matters. >> jay, who do you have?
>> i wanted to go back to the archive issue for one second and tell people, especially if you are wondering where to find women in the archives, ask the archivist, because they know. , go to the college collection, look at women in social movements international, which judy can tell you all about if you want, but the archivist know what is in there, and sometimes i have to remind myself that if there is something i am looking for, i just need to go talk to them. >> katie? >> hi, nicole phelps from the university of vermont. i wanted to continue on with that and this idea of sources do what i usually try and with my students when we are cultivating research projects is not getting them to ask a question and saying ok, where do i find the sources to deal with have themrather to look around and see what sources are available and thus what questions they can build out of it. i would encourage people to look
at their potentially very rich university special collections, local history archives, and build out from there. think about your books, student newspapers, think about ways you can see every day people, including students, who were inive in foreign relations their own particular ways and build from there. also with that, i know my special collection is pressed for space, so now we are starting to have conversations with our archivist and librarians, when people want to give their grandmother's papers to the university and the library and is like oh, we do space for for that -- that, they are also not thinking about what we might get out of those kind of things, because they are thinking about mary wanttional narratives, we members of congress, we are not interested in regular people.
i would encourage people who have those conversations as well so we can get at some of this other aspect of what women are doing. >> thank you. >> i wants to add briefly, and these are important point, i think it is important to be mindful of how we ask the question, and this is something i learned very early in my career, just the first year of grad school, deciding that i wanted to write a project on lack women's internationalism, so i sent out inquiries to all of these archivists saying, do you have collections on black women's internationalism? that sounds really fancy and nice and most people would say no, probably because they had no idea what i was talking about but did not want to actually ask me. i found out asking the question in a broader sense, i'm interested in the social movements of the 20th century, do you have collections that might send some light.
they were concerned with global issues, whether it was concerning africa, the caribbean, and asking the question differently yielded different result. i would go to places and not necessarily find what i was looking for, sometimes people would lead me to a missionary collection and i would be like oh, not what i thought i was looking for, but sometimes it turned out for me to be exactly what i needed. that is how i ended up at duke the papers ofces, a white supremacist. we can talk about that in a different context, how i found papers forg to the it was a the point is, simple question and the archivist was able to say, there is something here about black -- howf the interests the interests to engage with
ethiopia. they used ethiopia and its name, but it was actually engaging with iberia. the fact that i was able to ask a question broadly, it led me to be able to dig and pull the things together. i would say that sometimes as we are reaching out to archivists and asking questions, let's be mindful of how we explain ourselves so we don't actually shut the door immediately using the kind of lingo that we tend to use as academics. hope that is helpful. >> i also wants to add a point here, to remember the amazing digital collections that are now available, open-source digital collections. there are so many records online available now for students and for us, one collection i have usaid hassively,
thousands and thousands of primary source documents online. it is a really wonky website, it is hard to figure it out, but once you have figured it out, there is lots of stuff on their about the national council for neat row women, the overseas education, part of the league of women voters, there is lots of stuff on women's organizations and every other topic that you might think of. and you can search it by nation as well. so if you are interested in what is going on in rwanda or in bangladesh, you can search if i particular nations. >> i would also make a plea for collections, that the archives don't just magically appear. i think it is important that second wave feminists are not
getting any younger, and many of them have large numbers of newsletters to be told and collected. that has not been done. >> priscilla from the university of macau. i think it was chris who spoke about the need to look differently at the state, one of my former colleagues in hong was working on french , andial women in indochina she actually went to records of women who were, for one reason or another, usually widowed, sometimes deserted by their theands about petitioning colonial authoritative for some
kinds of financial support and giving quite a lot of detail of their lives. that strikes me. she found a lot of very interesting material there. it meant looking through a lot of card catalogs, records that she had not originally thought about. i also remember when i was looking at gerald ford's papers many, many years ago for something or other, i think i for foreignibrary affairs, military affairs -- actually, i was wondering what he had to say about foreign affairs and these were virtually all petitions from correspondence, constituents
about their personal situations of one kind or another. hell of a lot of congressional papers out there probably very rarely looked at, which nonetheless have a great deal of this kind of personal correspondence, very often and i wanting money, remember one fairly junior u.s. diplomat in the philippines telling me that every time the in, or a bigt came american ship, they would have quite a number of usually young servicemen wishing to get girled, they had met the of their dreams on shore leave, and were trying to bring a bride back to the united states.
i think you would find a good deal of information there. only quick suggestions that occur to me, but you get the general idea that there was a lot of material lurking there. thank you. i want to talk more about suffrage, and something brought up earlier. thereestic u.s. history, is a truism that when the 19th amendment passes, it doesn't really have an impact on the american political landscape, that women, because there are women who are conservative and liberal and so on, that there are more people voting, and perhaps this is personally empowering to women, but it doesn't reshape the way american politics works. but we know that since 1980 that is changing and you can see a gender gap in the way women vote versus the way men vote read but
i am wondering a little bit about this story we have about on the samee political spectrum, so we can't imagine them as a political force acting together, but at the same time there does seem to be something about the way women engage in politics were the priorities that they have. would bringing international relations into this reshape the way we look at the women's vote and doesn't make any difference in the waging of war and other types of things after that? or is this a recent phenomenon in international relations as well? >> your question makes me think article interesting
written following the 19th amendment, by a black nationalist activists -- activist living at the time in jamaica. this was published in "the need world world" newspaper, and she ,ltimately makes an argument and it is an article that is intent on speaking directly to black man in nationalist organizations, and i am going to read an excerpt. she says, "if the united states congress can open their doors to white women, we serve notice on our men that need women -- that women demand equal opportunity without discrimination because of sex. we are sorry if this hurts your
old-fashioned, tyrannical -- but webut we out not only make the demand, we intend to enforce it." andarticle is so powerful, i think about what it means. thealk about limitations of 19th amendment, especially as it pertains to black women, women of color in the united states, but i think a lot about that article and the ways in which, outside the context of the u.s. you have an activist looking at these developments, and not necessarily emphasizing the limitations, but saying, if this could happen, then what is the problem here in jamaica? what is the problem in these social movements we are a part of? why can't black men get with the program? it is just a very interesting interpretation of the development.
expand then we analysis beyond u.s. borders, we are able to add complexity to the story, but perhaps we are able to capture more of the impact in a way that might , to get with students back to the question asked earlier. that is one way to look at it. >> i would ask as a thought experiment to think counterfactual he for second. california adopted suffrage in 1911. the election of 1916 was the closest election of the 20th century until bush curses -- bush versus gore was decided by 4000 votes in california. we don't have exit polling, and we know that is not a was accurate, but certainly many
organized women at least in california, thought wilson was the better choice for women in 1916. and international relations and world history would have come out differently if charles evans hughes had won the election. so that is one way of thinking about it. i'm not sure it is the only way, but it is one way to start. >> i find the counterfactual helpful here. when we talk about traditional narratives, we hear the excuse, they are not in the records are i don't know where the archive is. then you also here, wherein -- you also hear, they weren't in the room. i'm interested in the final diplomacy, and there just weren't women in that room. but the counterfactual is helpful because you say, what if they were in that room? what were the voices that were not in the room, and would it have changed things if they had been? someone said before, bringing
different sources together, you can still write a very traditional, high-diplomacy story, but if you know what is being said in that room and you can hear what is happening outside the room, that is a powerful demonstration of how underrepresentation, lack of access and so on, can have world, historic impact. >> they were in the room. women who are in positions of the formal power. about whyuestion there hasn't been a gender voting block is interesting. because strategic maternal is him was a way to couch that there could be a women's political perspective, and that we should bring it to bear both the mystically and internationally, and there are and is critiques of it, find that women even in the theys were negotiating,
had a women's perspective and that was why they should go to china as a group and learn about gender and china, but at the same time resisting that and saying we are individuals who have our own spur -- our own perspectives and minds and our political interests are not contained purely in terms of internal's concerns. i see that navigation quite a bit. for example the opposition to u.s. nuclear testing, i kept on trying to find gender arguments, and i found it in constituencies who were writing in and they activist groups he was working in, but she herself never went there, and i think it was because her audience was the executive branch of the u.s. government. it is not going to work on the department of defense, so she can't represent yourself as a woman's voice, she has to say, this is going to cause environmental degradation, there is danger politically and to human life and animal life that will be affected.
so she is using tools of rational debate, of humanism, to say she has the capability to be in that room and make those types of arguments. i was in an oral exam recently where the graduate student examinee argued that women had more political power before the vote than after the vote in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, that through their maternal is amend their separate organizations they had more power. i see her point, and i think she was outrageously wrong. , did suffrage make a difference? it did not make an immediate difference in the vote, no, but it also did not decimate either maternal is a more women's organizations, and it allowed women eventually to enter halls of power, to not only have the
vote, but to be, a member of congress as patsy meek did, or as hillary clinton did, a secretary of state, so i think there is no way of knowing this for sure, but certainly, getting the vote helped women advocate for women's rights, both in the u.s. and internationally and maybe had an impact on antiwar movement, people to people diplomacy, those are areas where women having the vote were able to have more clout in international relations. but i have been thinking of a counterfactual, a somewhat different one. ,f women had not won the vote would foreign relations have been different? one, if is a sad hillary clinton was a man, would
it have changed foreign policy in the obama administration? i don't know. argue that she had to be a hawk because she was a woman, so maybe it would have changed it, i don't know. we have tolower: distinguish between the pioneer woman, the one woman in the room. one woman in the room is different from a room that is genuinely diverse with people of all kinds. i don't know if there is a tipping point that has to happen, because it is very difficult to be meek or clinton in that room. >> as we were talking i was thinking about the pan-african conference in 1945, and i thought about the fact that amy jacques harvey was not physically in the room, but she was in the room.
what do i mean? to theyears leading up pan-african congress, she plays a pivotal role in helping to helpinge congress, and to guide w.e.b. dubois, who she is writing extensively to, he is getting advice from her, and even in putting together the program, he is relying upon her ideas, he is drawing upon her recommendation, so she doesn't quite make it in the room, but she is certainly in the room. and i think about all the informal ways that people are in the room, when they are not physically in the room. i hope i haven't lost you, but to think about someone who i write about, and i often pause and think about her standing on street corners, speaking boldly
her ideas. this is someone who doesn't necessarily have the means to travel, so she won't make it to the fifth pan-african congress, she won't be in these spaces, but i think about what it means for her to occupy a -- that space, to speaker truth, and for people to walk by, may be people who would be in that room, and to imagine that impact in that moment. to me that is so powerful, and gets to the point i was making about pushing beyond the notion of former pollock -- formal politics, because it is in these informal spaces that many transformative things take place, and we could easily miss them if we solely talk about who is physically at the table, who is voting or making decisions, but if we go past that, it is remarkable, the kinds of narratives we can tell.
a kelly shannon, i have comment in support of the idea that suffrage matters to policy, but it takes a well to happen. in my first book, i looked at u.s. policy toward women's rights in the islamic world, and how that becomes a policy issue. i don't think that would have become an issue without women having political representation. bill clinton gets elected with the gender gap, and his administration really tries to mainstream women's human rights across the executive branch and in foreign policymaking. and it is women in the executive branch, women in congress, working with women in ngos that get these policies implemented. that would not have happened if women couldn't vote and didn't have access to the halls of power and weren't pressuring from the outside. clearly, we saw problems with this and in our current moment, we need to look at which women are voting in which way, because
a majority of white women are voting one way and women of color are voting another way. we have to look at where women's allegiances lay and terms of determining the impact of the suffrage movement. there is a lot we can do, especially with our students, to make the case that women's voting rights matter, and they really matter for women of color. thank you. >> i want to underscore that point of, what if you are the only one, and i'm looking at the 99 -- 1977 women's conference, the only time the federal government committed funds to have a women's conference. in a sense of having one national conference, they were going to have 56 pre-conferences, when in each state plus the six territories, so in acknowledgment of u.s. empire. and the funding for that passed by one vote in the senate, and there was no way that women and
people of color where the majority. they were a tiny minority, but they were able to mobilize arguments that social movements ,ouldn't afford to ask, to ask why is the wage gap increasing after a passage of 8 -- after the passage of a law that is supposed to guarantee equality? it is not just that person that is in the room, it is the social movement behind them that ups create political momentum that creates transformation. brad simpson, university of connecticut. i want to ask if you have anecdotes that match a moment that we can using teaching, where women's voices may be broke through momentarily, but then were somehow marginalized or repressed. i think sometimes those moments where women's voices break
through and then are marginalized again tells a lot about the kinds of political possibilities we imagine in our narratives, and i think about the history of human rights, and in indonesia in 1945 there was a congress of indonesian women, which was rooted in anti-colonial women's networks stretching back to the 1920's that put these radical proposals forward in the 1945 constitution, for a far more wide-ranging conception of human rights and women's rights as human rights, to include the full panoply of social and economic rights, coequal marriage, property rights, divorce rights, rights that women in the industrialized democracies did not have. and those voices were squashed, but when we try to recover those moments when radical conceptions of politics are informed by women thinking of the world through the lens of their own experience, even if those voices get repressed, we can push back against this narrative that
suggests women's rights and , there isrticipation a breakthrough when women enter politics and then everything is different, sometimes there are breakthroughs and then they are beaten backed out and they have to keep pushing back. is there a moment like this in your research that you might offer to help us think about ways of teaching those kinds of brief interventions that are nevertheless illuminating when thinking about women in foreign relations? >> i'm thinking about the question about teaching. a sense of have unfolding rights and gradual improvements over time, one thing that my students are shocked to learn is that headmaster laws lasted in this country until the 1970's. so the history of women's rights and what they couldn't do until the 1970's, this is a shocker.
classes emphasizing in how fragile these gains are is a great idea. i will let the panelists answer. >> catherine moreno's work on feminists in the 1930's and 40's, including social and economic rights, a more expansive vision of human rights than we often hear about, so that is parallel to what you were saying in your own research. but i also think about the shift when the population control movement was squashed to some extent by international feminists, who argued for women's reproductive health and women's reproductive rights, and really changed the movement away from the coercive population control that had been so
dominant in the 1960's and into the 1970's, toward something quite different, towards --nging birth control into away from population control and toward reproductive health and reproductive rights. end of course, we know how that washat is and how a triumph, but it is fragile and still under assault. that would be one example i can think of. and that was really an international movement of women, who had that triumph which was really quite important in changing that movement. examples i can think of are quite domestic, but can be reframed as international, and that is mccarthyism and anti-communism as textbook examples that crush progressive
movements because so much of feminism in the late 1940's and 1950's was located in the labor movement. i want to go back to one of the first questions and agree that my students are passionate about voting, but they are indifferent to women's suffrage, which i arek is ironic, they interested in voting issues and the civil rights movement of the 1960's and 1970's, but they don't really see the 19th amendment as part of that story this comment is worth putting on the table -- part of that story. this comment is worth putting on the table, that women's sx -- that women's access to the ballot remains under threat today. incarcerated women in the criminal justice system,
redistrict and gerrymandering are gender issue, and if i am not mistaken, the top 100 cities in america are majority female, urban disempowerment of voters is the disempowerment of women voters. third, we vote on tuesdays, and that creates dilemmas of care, work, picking up the kids and if one person is not going to vote, we can guess who that is going to be. and even efforts to expand the ballot through absentee or vote by mail also open up the possibility that women's votes may not be as independent as they could be, or as secret as they could be, under conditions of domestic violence. that is one way i scare my students into realizing that that women's suffrage is still an issue. >> you are giving me hand
signals, and i don't know what you are telling me. ok. , grad student from the university of berlin. thank you for the discussion so far. have a comment concerning our analytical lens when it comes to women's history. because of my research, i'm not concerned about the outcome of actions, but the motivations more, and when it comes to female actors, i catch myself repeating what i think are the same mistakes much of scholarship does, which is regarding female actions through the lens of femininity, women do things to find the need to , finds political agency their voice in public, or whatever, which i think is bad in a way, when we compare it to the way we talk about men in the context.
when you look at male activism, you look at the nature of the action, nothing gender behind it. environment activism is environmental, but you don't look at men doing something consciously as men, while we always do that, or in many instances, do this with women. and i feel we are ignoring quite a bit of complex personalities, complex stories that are behind women's engagement, if we only ofus on it as a narrative empowerment. that is where the question comes in. is it possible, or should we try moreite women's history without gender history? or is it something you can't disentangle from each other? professor meyerowitz: i think you should write men with gender history as well. [laughter]
we need to see what people are leaving behind in the historical record to see what motivates them. but given gender structures of inequality, i would find it very difficult to have individuals extricate themselves from that larger structure. it evenhanded, we should apply a gender lens to mend as well. look at need to historical records, but we need to do that equally. iofessor meyerowitz: understand your question but i reject the notion of male activism. part of what happens when we talk about the history of activism, by default, we tend to talk about men. so there is no sense in having to say male activism, because it it hasome the default, been always the dominant framing.
my thinking is that there would be no need for women's history if we were actually producing the kinds of narratives that inserted all voices. but because we haven't been doing so, and we as historians haven't been doing so for such a long time, then we need to assert that, now we should focus on a group that has been excluded. part of why we have moved in wes direction is because have recognized a blind spot, we have recognized that, generally speaking, even the way our students conceptualize history tends to be through the experiences and ideas of men. isto assert women's history
to go back to the point i made about intentionality, in order story.to a more nuanced i hope that explains why we are taking this approach. to the second part, it is important to not solely do women's history. one also has to think about gender and we have mentioned john scott's work, which makes the case why that needs to happen. professor meyerowitz: i would make two points i guess. one is that we really have to think about masculinity and how that informs men's actions. it is deeply entrenched in male activism and politics and so on, and to leave that out is really to the detriment of histories we write. written of people have
about how toughness and masculinity has so deeply informed politics, so it is important to do that. but i see your point and i think that we could do that, and we do sometimes do that. i can easily imagine saying -- say, a history of madeleine albright and the state department that isn't about gender. temple university. to internationalize the idea of suffrage, we know that after world war i it was not just the u.s. women seeking the vote, but many european countries. the discussion moved into why it didn't make much of a difference that women voted, and that got me thinking, why do we assume
that voting should have changed? because in some ways the impetus for granting the women the vote was that my chrissy was at stake, world war i, will sony and ideas were about democracy, onian ideas were about democracy and women having a seat at the table. so women voting differently from men presupposes that women are , andmentally different that voting is male or female. so my question is, does internationalizing this and looking at the interwar period at the moment of democratize a show in in many countries, and interestingly france did not grant the road grant the vote and aen until 1944,
french politician argued it was made possible because women in germany got the right to vote, and that started all the problems. those kinds of issues of citizenship, simply being part of that conversation, the seat at the table, might be ultimately more important, and that helps explain why sometimes women voted as a block, and sometimes not. >> i will make a pitch for panel women,aturday morning, peace, and the quest for international order between the wars. it shows where a lot of those political energies went, some of which went into electoral politics and some of which went into other places. think about women's suffrage
in relation to citizenship and exclusion, so 1924, the u.s. codifies immigration policies that designate asian immigrants as aliens ineligible for citizenship. an asian women's status is often tied to that of their husbands or their fathers, so that is a permanent form of disenfranchisement. 1920, 1924, about the ways in which the boundaries of the country are expanding and contracting at the same time. and i mentioned the u.s. empire of colonialism. aboutinating story international feminism centered in hawaii, where women from asia and the united states were coming together in that site, and women resisting suffrage in hawaii are white women because they want to keep white privilege alive. women advocating for u.s.
citizenship are native hawaiian women who want to use it as a tool to regain sovereignty. so these are complicated gender and racial and imperial forms of politics that we need to explore in greater detail. consortiumorm a uc for the study of gender, sexuality in the americas, and we got a grant to explore empire and suffrage in the americas next year. one project will be how we teach suffrage in light of that atmospheric perspective. i'm looking forward to those conversations. >> we have time for one more from the audience. catherine from rockford university. i want to go to the question of influence, and how difficult it is to show influence by women in the historical record. i did some work on informal
theomacy and concluded that best way to show that is through access, and if women have access, which we know they do. most men live surrounded by a variety of women that, through those aspects of men's lives, we can find the influence of women, and i would leave us with a last example of the tennessee house representative who passed the final vote to get suffrage approved in tennessee and thus, amended to the constitution, and the influence of his mother, who clearly had access to him. >> let's finish with one last question.
what kind of research do you hope comes out of the next wave of scholarship? >> this is an issue we haven't addressed sufficiently on this at lgbthich is looking in the history of queer women broadly speaking, particularly as a question of foreign relations and internationalism. we have had panels over the last few years about lgbt organizations in the international arena and social movements, and i think we can do more to look at sexuality as an issue of foreign relations and framing the world, and how the united states understands itself and its allies and enemies, of queertural analysis
histories in our traditional archive, and going back and doing recovery work. i was struck by how many of the were active internationalists in the early 20th century we would recognize, recognizeot even themselves in the lens of being queer, and we could do a lot more with that. i hate tomeyerowitz: be prescriptive in this way because i remember when i was a young scholar and senior scholars came in and said, here is what has to happen next. and now that i am approaching the age of retirement, i hate to be that person who tells this next-generation what you should be doing. you know what you should be doing, you youngsters out there. one thing i will say is that there is a lot to be done in
fairly recent history, from the 1970's on. this huge proliferation of ngos, many of which are run by women, some of which are about women, that nobody has written about, and there is a lot to be done there. on modernization and microcredit and how women became the deserving poor. it brings up a larger question i am touching on end, curious about and would like to see somebody writing about, which is how we got to the moment now industry,e is this multibillion dollar industry, in and girls, and what that means and what are the different valences of that, and i think that is something that is right to investigate.
i wouldr tzu chun wu: like to cs approach the history of foreign relations. it would be great to see a more bottom-up perspective. we often do the top down which is certainly important and reveals a lot and itower dynamics, reveals who has access and power and in what ways. are able to capture more voices if we take a step back and look closely at the grassroots level, to see ways in which people are making decisions, individually and are intent onthat shaping global politics.
it is hard to do. except that, but moving in that direction would be wonderful. i would love to see more people doing that. professor tzu chun wu: they individualoing their passions, but the focus on suffrage and privilege of citizenship, and given large numbers of people who are undocumented in this country, and the ways people seeking refuge are being treated at the borders, i think we need to think about people occupying those precarious positions of not having citizenship and state rights, and thinking about ways in which they are forcing us to grapple with what it means to belong to a nation, what it means to have international relationships, without considering individuals who are migrating across borders. and socialn
movements, it is an online resource people often use in classrooms, and instead of publishing secondary scholarship, we are publishing archival sources, so if you are working on a topic and would like to share archival sources you have discovered to help our newents an edge in historical questions and projects, please get in touch with me. i would love to talk with you. panelists.u so much [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] this is american history tv, on c-span3, where each weekend we feature 48 hours of programs exploring our nation's past.
>> american history tv products are available at the new c-span online store. to see-spanstore.org what is new for american history tv, and check out all the c-span product. >> national history day is a program that culminates in a student competition. students are encouraged to choose a topic in history, and that can be anything. it can be world history, local, national, state, ancient, modern, everything in between. as long as they are interested in it. they go out, they do research, and they find the resources to tell them the story, but also try to figure out the significance of their topic in history. so they are going to archives,