What are minorities? (And the story of two minorities in Norway)

When we decided that April should be minorities’ month, I was thrilled, cause then I could write about a minority of any kind. However, I have the last few weeks been thinking: how can I choose one minority in history and write about it? Or shall I look at a set of minorities? Or shall I write about why a minority became a minority? These thoughts have been bothering me for a while, because I wanted to get it all right. However, what does seem to stand clear in front of me is that no matter what I do, I will have to determine what a minority is, and why it is a minority. (As I will be referring to the Sami and the Kvens in this text, will I also be adding a brief account of their history at the end of this update, but if you find them interesting, then please go ahead and read more.) 

Based on common sense can minorities be seen as a group of people that are different from the majority population within its society, and at the same time must this minority to some extent recognize its own members as a part of this minority. So far, so good, but what kind of minorities are there out there? And who are they? Too many to count will be the easiest answer, but in general can minorities be divided in a set of groups; 1 ethnic minorities, 2 religious minorities, and 3 sexual minorities. The 3^rd group will always be present in any kind of society, no matter how homogeneous the population is ethnically and culturally. So this blog post will focus on the two other types of minorities, and two very specific examples of them in Norwegian history, after all this is a history blog.

Traditionally have Norway only had a small number of national minorities, or so I was told while I was in school, these were the Sami, the Kvens, the Jews and the Gypsies. Of these 3 of them came into Norway, after the reformation, and the Jews did not gain access to the country until the second half of the nineteenth century, and that after a long public debate if they should be let in. But all of them have become minorities in Norway due to migration, and the search for a living and a better life.  Minorities become minorities due to migration in two ways: firstly by migrating into an area already populated by a different ethnic group, this applies to the Kvens, Jews and Gypsies. (Although, the Jews might also be seen as a religious minority as they are defined to some extent more by religion, than ethnicity.) Secondly, by being the original inhabitants in an area settled by groups that over time evolve into a majority and that bring the territory into a greater political unit. This is the story of the Sami, a group of indigenous peoples in Northern Scandinavia that over the last thousand years have gone from being a nomadic majority population in regions, to become a minority split between 4 states: Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway.

Due to the history of forced assimilation directed against the Sami and other minorities in Norway, have some of them received more attention than others. The idea in the years prior to the Second World War was that the Norwegian society should be Norwegian through and through, and that any minority languages and cultures should be rooted out and corrected so that these minorities could be integrated into the majority as full members of a Norwegian state. This assimilation process was supported by the idea of eugenics, and race studies, but in the beginning it started as a ‘crusade’ to convert the pagans living in the wilderness of the north. These processes destroyed the original Sami culture and its traditional religion. The policies of assimilation went so far, that for a period in the twentieth century were there children who were raised that was not taught the traditional Sami language, and the languages was dying. Furthermore did it develop a stigma of shame to be Sami, so many chose not to mention that they had Sami blood, for who wanted to be part of the ‘inferior’ people? All this changed after the Second World War, and during the 1970’s the Sami people started to wake up and claim respect and acceptance for who they are within the nation, and that they had been there longer than the state itself. Today the Sami have a separate parliament within the Norwegian state, and the languages that once was dying are now in active use. This is a total shift from what the life of this ethnic minority was like only 70 years ago.

The second type of minority I mentioned is one that for many nations and states might be the most problematic, the religious minority. Britain itself suppressed its religious minorities, and in so many states throughout the world have religious minorities been discriminated and prosecuted against. I can think of a few just on the top of my head: Huguenots in France, Catholics in England, Protestants, Jews and Muslims in Imperial Spain, among others. Religious divisions have in some conflicts given the rise to the same frictions as ethnic minorities within empires can create. The Kurds in Turkey or the Albanians within former Yugoslavia, are both ethnic groups that are/have been minorities within the states they once lived in. In Norwegian history was the Sami  the only religious minority for a long time, until during the course of the nineteenth century, first Catholics and then Jews were welcomed into the nation. Over the years have most Sami’s converted to Christianity, but the traditional religion is still practiced by some. But this have taken an ethnic minority into the religious majority, and equally have ethnic Norwegians converted to Catholicism or Islam, and through that are both a majority and a minority. It all depends on where you draw the lines within which we count the members.

Although minorities, and majorities have existed as long as written records, and even longer, I have a feeling that it is impossible to fully study a minority or majority in a given society, for there will always be members of each group that overlap with the other. In fact I’m personally both a part of minorities and a majority at the same time in my everyday life, it all depends on who I choose to be, and which identity I feel is most suitable at any given time. Although I’m white and European, this makes me in the Ethnic majority on campus at the University of Winchester, I am also male, which makes me a minority, furthermore am I gay, and foreign, both which are minorities both at the University and in the world in general. So depending on how we look at minorities, will determine who we are examining, and in some cases will our minorities and majorities be the same persons.

So as we have seen is a minority a group of people who are different from the majority of the population within a society, and often have these become so because of migration, and the longing for a better life.

A brief story about the Kvens and the Sami, a case study for minority assimilation.

Some of the first references to the ethnic diversity of Northern Scandinavia, and maybe also a good source for how the relationship between the ethnic groups were in those regions, can be found in the text known as Ohthere’s journey. A story added on to Alfred the Great’s translations of Orosius, that not only is about the journey of Ohthere, a Norseman who travels to Alfred’s court, but also about the society he lives in, and the lands he traveled through to get there.

                The text mentions several groups of people, but especially how the relationship is between the Norse settlers in Northern Norway and the Sami living inland from them. A relationship marked by taxation and domination by one group over the other. In addition to outline the trade and taxation practices of Northern Norway both in the early middle ages, but also trends that continued for many hundred years later, the text also mentions another ethnic group that together with the Sami have shaped Northern Norway since the seventeenth century, the Kvens. The Kvens, is an ethnic group originally from areas that today is part of Finland, but migrated to Norway in two waves. Firstly, during the seventeenth and eighteenth century to find more agricultural land, due to population growth in their homelands, secondly, during the nineteenth century when the population again was rising in, but this time it was combined with famine and failed harvests in the Torneo Valley on the border between Finland and Sweden. Both the first and the second wave of Kven migration to Northern Norway brought a new work force to the region, whereas the first migration settled and took up agriculture as a way of life, mixed with fishing and forestry, did the second settle in fishing villages or mining villages as they were both skilled and hard working labourers. But why did this group that migrated from today’s Finland become so significant for the region? Well the answer is in the share numbers of the migration, it is estimated that at the beginning of the Twentieth century there were about 25% of the population of Finnmark that were of Kven origin. In some regions there was not only the dominant ethnic group, but also a significant minority to take account of.  If there is one act in the history of Norway that can be seen as the formal starting point of the nationalization of the minorities, then it is the law of 1902 about purchasing land from the state. The law stated that only Norwegian speakers could purchase land from the state, this was to prevent foreign business interests to buy up Norwegian resources, and above all to make sure that the land would stay on Norwegian hands. This did not only prevent Kvens, who spoke a language related to Finnish, but also the Sami from buying land for agriculture or for other reasons. This law can stand as a monument for all the actions that followed which forcefully attempted to assimilate the Kven and Sami population into the majority population.

Some have suggested that these actions of Norwegianisation of the Kvens were an attempt to prevent a Finnish rebellion among the Kvens in support of Finland, the cultural mother-land of the Kvens. And there have, as far as I can tell, not been many large scale rebellions against this Norwegianisation of the Kvens or the Sami, well maybe with one exception. What I have in mind is an episode known as the Kautokeino rebellion, a short episode were a small group of Sami led an attack on the local authorities and trade center. As far as I am aware, is this the only incident were violence was used by members of either ethnic group, in what some choose to see as an attempt to fight back against the settlements and oppression. However, there are more elements to this one case than just this one,  for those that have the possibility is the sources, which are published in a collected volume, available in Norwegian. And there is also made a film about this event, although it is not very accurate, it is a free interpretation of a series of events which till this day is not fully understood. For the theories range about everything from religious fanatics acting against the selling of alcohol, to a reaction against the exploitation of the  Sami among the local Norwegian population, or as desperate act in response to the loss of the grazing areas east of the Finno-Russian border, after it got closed in the middle of the nineteenth century. However, this is not the place or time to debate the origins for the rebellion, but what this rebellion suggest alongside its sources, is that the Sami population and their culture was changing as a result of the Nationalization of the nation.

As a part of the Norwegianization policies applied by the Norwegian government during the second half of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, were the teaching of Sami and Kven/Finnish slowly abolished in schools. In some areas were these languages taught until 1936, this abolition was a part of the ideas of ‘one nation- one people- one language’ that formed the base note of the assimilation policies prior to the Second World War.

In the years after the Second World War, were these policies re-examined in relation to the Human Rights and Norway’s relationship with the UN. It lead to an re-establishment of teaching in Sami and Finnish in schools, and the establishment of a Sami Parliament to safeguard Sami interests in relation to their rights as an indigenous people. Whereas the Sami have gained recognition of their status as Indigenous people, and have a Parliament guiding the state on Sami related issues, the Kvens have been integrated into Norwegian society, although their cultural and linguistic heritage is now safeguarded from extinction due to the legal protection of these traditional elements in Kven culture.

In comparison to other minorities around the world, the story of the Sami and Kvens is not as gruesome as it perhaps could have been. Thanks to a strong political and cultural awareness among these groups they have survived and developed within the Norwegian state into what they are today. It is believed to live between 40-60 000 Sami and 15-25 000 Kvens in Norway, so these groups are not easily dismissed in the wider national context. Although minorities exist, and come into existence due to migration, and although it sometimes seems easier to assimilate minorities into one culture, where everyone speak the same and have the same culture, we as citizens of the World should remember that it is the diversity of these culture that makes life exciting to live. So please let us not go backwards and force minorities into the closed, where they will hide in shame and die, but let us celebrate them and accept them. For who knows, we might need their knowledge one day. So let’s have the Sami Parliament in Norway stand as a monument for the rights indigenous people have, and the respect minorities, both those forgotten and extinct, and those living today, deserve to have. After all, you who read should remember that you might also be a minority from time to time, depending on time and space.

 

Source:

WWW.SNL.NO

President Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression, 1929-1933.

The economic boom of the 1920s, the result of a thirty-year industrial revolution, was destined to weaken the economy long-term. There were massive technological changes and the 1920s was a period of great innovation. Automatic switchboards, conveyor belts and the concrete mixer were just a few examples of the new products that were available to use and to purchase within the economy. The most successful venture was the of conventional use of electricity; it provided a cheaper and more efficient source of power for factories and also led to the production of new consumer goods such as the refrigerator and radios. However, these new techniques meant that goods could be produced more cheaply and on a much larger scale such as Henry Ford’s car industry after introducing the assembly line, however, this meant that as everyone who could afford a car had brought one, the consumer demand decreased and over-production became problematic. This lead to unsold goods, which in turn saw profits falling. With no profit, staff were made redundant and unemployment began to rise. A short-term cause of the Great Depression was credit. Even though it made circumstances easier for consumers to buy goods, many did not have enough money to pay back the banks what they owed. This meant that when the depression did hit in October of 1929, Americans would rush to the bank where they had deposited all of their life savings only to find that there was not enough money for them to make a withdrawal. From 1930-33, depositors lost $2.5 billion in savings from banks that closed or went bankrupt.

The National output had been cut by half and was now less than in 1915 meaning that ‘boom’ of the 1920s had been lost. Investors lost as much money in October 1929 as the USA had spent fighting in the First World War. If 1920s America was looking bleak before 1929, the Wall Street Crash ensured the last bit of hope that remained was crushed. Over the weekend of 26^th and 27^th October, stockbrokers who had sold their shares ‘on the margin’ had borrowed money from banks to fund the initial purchasing of said share and the banks were now demanding repayment of their money. To repay the banks, the brokers in turn had to ask their customers for repayments of debts and the only way in which customers could do so, was to sell shares at any price. Panic-stricken brokers and investors sold 16 million shares in one day. Stock prices slumped by $14,000,000 on 29^th October. On Wall Street, between 29^th October and 13^th November, over $30 billion disappeared from the value of the American economy.

President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, believed that the government should not try to manage the economy, strongly highlighting Hoover’s ‘voluntarism’ efforts. He tried to persuade businesses to take action to deal with the economic crisis without the government passing laws to force them to act i.e. not to cut production or lay workers off. When the depression hit, 8 months after his inauguration, Hoover waited 2-3 years – once the American economy was in a dire condition – to finally set up funds and organisations to get the US back on its feet. He authorised $2 billion for the creation of the RFC, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in January 1932 which was intended ‘to make temporary advances to establish industries, railways and financial institutions which cannot otherwise secure credit, and where such advances will stimulate employment’. Similarly the Glass-Steagall Act gave $750 million of government gold reserves as loans to private businesses. Hoover’s most notable attempt to regulate trade was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. He increased the price on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels with an average of 40% on agricultural and industrial items. This led to most other nations applying the same tariffs on American goods meaning that US exports dropped by half ensuring the depression lasted longer and affected more businesses. The US depression had reached its peak as world trade was practically halted.

The next step in Hoover’s plan was to create the Federal Farm Board, which administered loans and aimed to stabilise prices and to promote the sales of agricultural products. By the end of its first year, the FFB had loaned in excess of $148 million. However, the government’s involvement did not produce many results in the agricultural or business industry and did not solve the problem of unemployment. Hoover established the Emergency Committee for Employment as one of his last attempts to combat the depression, but he gave the committee, limited resources ($47 million) and so on such a small-scale and small budget, it never really had a chance at making a difference. The last memorable demonstration from Hoover was insensitively dealing with the Bonus Army in June 1932. The veterans of the First World War, who were unemployed and as a result their families were hungry, began a march in Washington demanding the payment of a veterans’ bonus approved by Congress in 1924 but to be paid 20 years afterward. The money, in the sum of $3,500,000,000, would clearly provide the much-needed lifeline to the veterans and their families. Congress rejected the 20,000 veterans their proposal to pay the money immediately and in protest, thousands of ‘bonus marchers’ and their families built a home of tents at the nearest Hooverville in Anacosta Flats in Washington and threatened to stay there until the proposal was passed. However, Hoover approved a plan to evict them. One thousand armed soldiers, equipped with tear gas, tanks and machine guns, drove the veterans from the camp and burned it to the ground along with all of their possessions. After this incident, Hoover lost public faith.

Hoover was not successful in combating the depression. A reflection of this was the beginning of ‘Hoovervilles’; the popular name for a town of homeless men who lived in cardboard boxes. The term was coined by publicity chief of the Democratic National Committee, Charles Michaelson named after Hoover. These people lived in shacks, in the worst living conditions possible and had to beg for food. Democrat’s popularised related terms such as the ‘Hoover blanket’; old newspapers used as blankets and the ‘Hoover flag’; an empty pocket turned inside out. After these events, Hoover, who returned unopposed as a Republican candidate was prepared for a defeat as well as the rest of the party. Hoover’s term as President saw the descent of the nation further into depression. He was reluctant to take action until the situation was exceptionally poor and when he did, it was with reluctant implying that any organisation or fund that he set up was to barely get below the surface of the problem as he had no confidence. This would suggest that he was not totally dedicated to bringing the USA out of the depression; an attribute that the next elected president Franklin D. Roosevelt was passionate about. However, some historians argue that while Hoover was not successful, he should not be labelled as a ‘do-nothing’ president. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation for example, was adopted by Roosevelt in the New Deal and was successful because of the massive scale and funding that went into it.

When discussing unemployment and business, Hoover’s actions can be seen as ‘too little and too late’. His handling of unemployment was a disaster, and not to mention ineffective; while millions of Americans were starving and left homeless, Hoover refused to take extensive government measures in response. Instead he upheld his firm belief in laissez-faire; the minimum input on the governments’ behalf and voluntarism; businesses to take action alone in order to deal with the economic crisis without the passing of any laws forcing them to act. The deciding factor of Hoover’s defeat and unpopularity was the way in which he dealt with the Bonus Army (The Shame of Anacosta Flats). America did not see Hoover as a compassionate leader in touch with their needs, who would lead them out of the depression. Instead, they saw failure.

Hoover’s time in office led the USA to desire someone new and passionate. They demanded an intelligent and effective government to revive the failing economy; a president who would be active and representative of his people – far from the Republicans of the 1920s. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and would later become one of the most successful and passionate presidents America had seen. Roosevelt promised the New Deal, which in effect was the RFC authorised by Hoover, but on a much larger and more ambitious scale; what America needed during their time of need. This would help the economy in a much more effective way, and as the President connected with the people in a more personal way, the public finally felt that a political figure understood the extent of the damage and was not going to give up.

The Great Unwashed?

How many times do you hear or see it stated that medieval people hardly ever washed? Is it correct to assume that the men and women of the medieval period restricted bathing to an annual (or even more infrequent) activity, and so smelled almost all of the time?

In trying to answer these questions I will explore bathing habits of the upper classes, poorer and common people, beginning with the inhabitants of castles.

In their book ‘Life in a Medieval Castle’ Joseph & Frances Gies claimed that ‘baths were taken in a wooden tub, protected by a tent or canopy and padded with cloth…. when the Lord traveled the tub accompanied him, along with a bathman who prepared the baths”. This passage goes on to say “In some important thirteenth century castles and palaces there were permanent bathrooms, and in Henry III’s palace at Westminster there was even hot and cold running water in the bath house…”[i].

Not all though, seem to  had such conveniences available to them and “even the accounts and illustrations of bathing in palaces and noble residences seldom depict bathing as a solitary activity”[ii]. Part of the reason for this seems to have been the time and effort involved in the preparation of hot baths, and the desire to conserve the water used. As a result of this, public or communal bathing seem to have been more popular, whether in natural water sources, or (perhaps later) in the public bath houses which some major European cities had. The only problem is that some bath houses may  become associated with promiscuity and prostitution, some even being attached to, or effectively being brothels. One example of these could have been the Southwark stews in London.

Bathing also seems to have some taken on some ceremonial associations apart from simple cleanliness. In another passage from the same book a Chronicler by the name of Jean de Tours recounted how “a bath was prepared according to the custom for novice knights” in this case a young Geoffrey of Anjou, and how “after bathing Geoffrey donned a linen undergarment, a tunic of cloth of gold…” and other finery, who  was being “initiated into knighthood” along with his attendants.” So it would seem that bathing was in some way associated with Knighting ceremonies, and in England, the Order of the Bath was also established, which may have placed even more prominence on the tub.

The simple necessity of keeping clean is one thing, but did medieval people have any appreciation of hygienic and health benefits of bathing? It would seem so.

[medieval-bath-1] Another source states that “hygienic bathing was not the rare activity during the medieval period that most critics assume….some medical manuals recommended daily baths, hot or cold”. In this context in appears that “indoor and outdoor baths were common” hot springs and natural spas were even held to have health benefits and some indoor facilities allegedly “had indwelling glaze tile tall stoves or dry heaters with hot stones”[iii].

Such may have been all well and good for the wealthy or upper classes, but what of commoners or the poor? Were they truly ‘the great unwashed’? According to the above source “All social classes… could bathe somewhere on the ocean shore, riverbanks, lake fronts, stream beds, hot springs water holes, natural ponds and artificial pools”[iv].

If this was the case and the less regular  less regular bathing of Medieval people can “be attributed to more limited facilities available for washing and the … inconvenience of using them then to  any cultural bias against cleanliness”, their taking the opportunity to wash wherever or whenever they could may make perfect sense, and who can blame them?[v].

So it would appear that washing and bathing were not such an uncommon occurrence for later medieval people regardless of whether they were rich or poor, and that they, like us, were concerned about personal hygiene. What gave rise to the misconceptions about smelly medieval bathing only once a year, or not wanting to wash because they were afraid of catching cold hay have to be a subject for a future post, but taking such claims with a large helping of salt (or low sodium alternative) may be a good idea.

[i] Joseph Gies & Frances Gies, Life in a Medieval Castle p71.

[ii] Ibid., p166.

[iii] Madeline Pelner Cosman, Linda Gale Jones, Handbook To Life in the Medieval World (New York, 2008), p123-5.

[iv] Ibid,. p125.

[v] Paul B. Newman, Daily Life in The Middle Ages (North Carolina, 2001).

How useful for the understanding of supernatural beliefs are the anthropological/ social anthropological and functionalist approaches?

So for my post this month’s I’ve decided to explore something different within history, by discussing the relationship that history has with other disciplines such as Anthropology, along with its social counter-part and the Functionalists approach to certain historical situations, in this case the existence of witchcraft beliefs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. It can often be suggested that to understand anything you need to look at it from a multitude of angles and this is especially the case with regards to the historian’s attempts to understand the belief in witchcraft that occurred. However the extent to which other disciplines can be useful to the historian to help them understand such concepts is what this post shall discuss.

Anthropology, social anthropology and functionalist are three of a wider spectrum of approaches that can be used by historians to help explain the witch craze, which occurred in Europe and the founding colonies of America, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries. This work will define before discussing the usefulness of these approaches in studying supernatural beliefs. Firstly there are two key terms in this question that need to be addressed, ‘supernatural’ is in itself an overarching term which can be used to indicate any belief in the supernatural, such as ghosts and fairies. In this work supernatural will apply particularly to beliefs of magic and witchcraft. The other key term in this work is usefulness and this shall be defined as whether these approaches allow new insights into explaining witchcraft and magical beliefs. Lastly this work will lokin particular on the works of Keith Thomas – ‘History and Anthropology’ and E.P. Thompson- ‘Anthropology and the Discipline of Historical Context’, before finally concluding on how useful these approaches are to the historical study of witchcraft and magical beliefs.

Anthropology and social anthropology can be suggested as two approaches that at times can be combined with each other as both these subjects are concerned with the study of man and humanity and thus also with the study of history. Yet, whilst they are similar as a result of what they study, they are not the same. For instance, anthropology is defined as the study of man and culture through localised studies before comparing the modern societies concerned and use this analysis to explain the past. This is underpinned by the principle that if you can understand one society you should be able to understand the other, as certain aspects of humanity and human life do not change. On the other hand social anthropology is similar to anthropology however the key difference is that social anthropology focuses primarily on how human beings behave individually whilst in social groups.

One of the foremost strengths of using these approaches, both anthropology and social anthropology, to explain supernatural and witchcraft beliefs is the approaches ability to ‘combine in one discipline the approaches of biology and social sciences’ . This is constructive to studying magical beliefs as it allows the researcher to look at the many strands of life that are related to and entwined with each other. This allows the historian to see the wider picture, along with similarities within the explanations, of why certain societies would use witchcraft to explain disaster, and the similarities in the treatment of witches across Europe and America during the witch craze. This can be demonstrated in the way that modern day believers in witchcraft use it to explain the so-called ‘unexplainable’. In the study, by Professor Evans-Prichard, of the Azande tribe, a boy knocked his foot on a stump of wood, injuring his foot. The boy in this case then accounted for his injury by explaining that someone had bewitched him to walk in to the stump of wood . This behaviour is comparable to European Witchcraft beliefs, for example in the Malleus Malificuram where if cattle fell ill; it wasn’t the result of a disease but someone bewitching the cattle .

The strength of these approaches can be further demonstrated if we consider anthropological and social anthropological studies as a form of reconstruction. By looking at areas such as rural Africa where the belief in magic still continues to be used to explain unexplainable events, this is to an extent, is a way of reconstructing the mind-set, attitudes and actions of people in Europe and America at the height of witchcraft belief. This would ‘involve an effort of… historical imagination,’ if looked at through documents alone. For instance in rural Africa today mental and physical illness can be accounted for by magic and sorcery. This can be compared to the use of ‘bewitchment’ as a medical term to describe illnesses, as shown by cases in the Salem witch trials. Thus it can be suggested that the strength of these approaches is the element of reconstruction which helps the modern historian rationalise why a society could, and would, believe in witchcraft when modern researchers do not. Furthermore anthropologists and social anthropologist do, as part of their research ‘live in or at least visit the society they are studying’. Thus it can be suggested that they perhaps have a greater understanding of how relationships between ideological entities such as politics and social structure are linked, rather than historians who treat such entities as separate things. For example social tensions are highlighted between people, in the case of the Malleus Maleficarum where the little girl makes it rain to help her father’s crops . This demonstrates how other concerns, in this case agricultural and economic concerns are also apart of studying witchcraft and it is through these approaches that we are able to see these links.

A vital limitation of these approaches is the comparative nature of their studies, while this is considered a strength of these approaches, it continues to be a limitation. For instance can historians use this analysis of modern rural Africa and explain belief in sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe and America when the contexts and situations are not perfectly similar. For example if it is considered that ‘society’s beliefs and their behaviour will vary ’ in contemporary time, is it possible to use data from this to explain belief in Europe and Colonial America, where belief is also varied. The same can be suggested for social anthropology as one person’s reactions to witchcraft would be different to another’s. This is demonstrated by the difference in belief and the treatment of elite and popular forms of magic. For instance astrologers were consulted by the elite; witches were despised by the general populous; and a social anthropologist has to be wary of the distinction between the two rather than using their analysis of a cultures belief in magic and applying it to the general belief during this time. This also highlights a further limitation of generalisation; whilst anthropologists and social anthropologists frequently take one small society and study it as a whole, applying their findings to the society experiencing the witch craze, they generalize experiences which should be considered as unique to the people at the time.

A final limitation with these approaches is that both anthropologists and social anthropologists ask different questions from a historian studying the topic. Whilst this can be considered a strength, at the same time it is a limitation as perhaps the questions do not tell the historian what they wish. For example, E.P Thompsons criticisms of Alan Macfarlane’s work, The family life of Ralph Josselin, admits that the work asked ‘questions neglected by historians,[but] it doesn’t necessarily ‘equip him to answer these questions’ . This leads to the other limitation, of anachronistic judgements and definitions that can occur from these approaches. For example the idea that among the Azande witchcraft is considered ‘normal not abnormal’ , yet Evans-Pritchard judges’ witchcraft to be abnormal demonstrates his western view upon supernatural belief. This therefore demonstrates how the anthropologist, like the historian, interprets the answers differently and can have anachronistic judgements which bias their findings and limit the approach’s use.

Finally, the functionalist approach needs to be considered; because as an extension of anthropology it also has its own strengths and weaknesses that need to be highlighted separately. The functionalist approach focuses on the use that various social elements such as social norms; customs and traditions, have within the society usually benefiting it in a positive manner. Thus the approach interprets witchcraft and the subsequent belief in it as having a useful social function within society. The usefulness of this approach is demonstrated by its ability of the approach to make witchcraft appear a more rational concept to employ to relieve guilt or undesired elements within the society. An example is found in witchcraft’s function of reinforcing social norms. In particular the scapegoat nature to accusations, old women who acted outside social norms or midwives who upset the patriarchal nature of society, and women, along with men being blamed for illness in animals to relieve the tension and explain what the society could not. Thus, the approach is useful at rationalising the concept of why people would believe in the supernatural to re-enforce the various social norms.

However, witchcraft doesn’t always have a positive social function of unifying the society together. For instance Erik Midelfort states the witchcraft trials in the German Provinces during the 16th century ‘were dysfunctional’ and left the society even more torn up and suspicious. Thus this approach can be shown as being unable to be considered as an overarching explanation applicable to all societies and so its use is limited.
These three approaches to witchcraft; can therefore be considered as highly useful to the historian when they are studying witchcraft. As they all help to rationalise a concept that to a modern audience seems irrational and unbelievable, by asking more sociologically minded questions and focusing on the inter-relationships within the society. This explains witchcraft beliefs in a way that perhaps a person at the time might have explained it. However these approaches are not the only ones and should not be considered as such. Historians, anthropologists, social anthropologists and functionalists only interpret the subsequent peoples’ belief in witchcraft in a way that would be understandable to them. As a result there will always be issues with whether what is described as the person in questions belief is what the person actually meant; or that the belief in the supernatural is the sole belief within that society, in the azande not every misfortune is also attributed to witchcraft the breaking of social norms or a supreme being . Thus the usefulness of these approaches when studying supernatural beliefs is only to an extent as the main problem, whether a study of a modern culture’s belief in the supernatural can explain a historical culture’s belief is, and will always be a difficult issue. Therefore the approaches cannot be considered as useful when studying witchcraft beliefs as just because two societies have similar beliefs and actions, it does not mean that they can explain each other.

Sources
Primary Sources
Kramer, H., & Spencer, J., The Malleus Maleficarum, translated by Reverend, M, Summers, (New York, 1948)144-149.
Secondary Sources
Beals, R., &Hoijer, H., An Introduction to Anthropology, (New York,1959) 1-22.
Brian, J, L., ‘An Anthropological Perspective on the Witchcraze’ in A, C, Lehmann & J, E, Myers (ed.) Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion; An Anthropological Study of the Supernatural (London, 2001) 208-215.
Douglas, M., Witchcraft, confessions and Accusations, (London, 2004).
Evans-Pritchard, E, E., Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande, (Oxford, ) 63-83.
Jenkins, R., ‘Continuity and Change: Social science perspectives on European witchcraft’ in J, Barry& O, Davies (ed.) Witchcraft Historiography (London, 2007) 203-225.
Thomas, K, V., ‘History and Anthropology’, Past and Present 24 (1963).
Thompson, E, P., ‘Anthropology and the discipline of Historical Context’, Midland History 1 (1972).

The Lebensreform

“The Lebensreform movement had offshoots in the vegetarian, clothing reform and anti-alcohol movements which demanded a transformation of lifestyle with rejection of unbridled consumerism and commercialism”[1] stated P. Weindling in 1989.

Many might be thinking what is all this issue about the Lebensreform and why it is significant. The truth is that this particular subject is not very well known outside the German speaking countries, but I do consider it should be something to revise and rethink as it could be useful to understand and reconsider the actual situation that we are living.

The Lebensreform (or life reform movement) started a t the end of the 19th century, but it had a bigger impact during the first decades of the 20th century, particullarly in Germany and Switzerland. It aimed to return mankind’s lifestyle to a more natural way of life. These “first hippies” followed ideals related to a healthier diet based on natural ailments, natural medicine, and sexual freedom. As one of their principal figures understood it, they were the “champions of a new culture who adopt a negative attitude to the machine age in Western Europe”[2]. This was the period of philosophical uprisings and social utipies, and this one was not an exception. Their ideals were extremly influenced by Nietzsche and Darwing, and encouraged by the failure of the capitalist welfare {3}. They thought life should be lived in an easier way; it should be easy going, simple, but especially full of freedom.

The new generations (the youth) and particullarly the students were the mayor supporters of the movement as they were impregnated with the new socialist ideas, and were those in closer contact with these changing world full of toxines (mental and physical)[4]. However, the ideas they followed were susceptible to interpretation and this ended up in the division and fragmentation of the movement in different subcultures and submovements. For instance, one of the more popular ones was the Volkische Bewegung, which promoted the revival of traditional societies based on agriculture and crafts[5]. Some others tuerned to be communists, and even members of the National Socialist party. Nonetheless, they all shared common features that could be summarised as follows: they anxiety to escape their suffocating society and a wish to turn the tables[6].

As one can easily expect, the movement died easily, mostly due to the fragmentation of its supporters in different subgroups, in addition to the revival of capitalism. It could be said that it survived somehow in the later american hippies, as many of these Lebensreformers ended in the United States, hoping to find a more open-minded population. Some could say that the clear, existing legacy of the movement is the company of retail stores called Reformhaus, and other similar entities (organic food markets, herbolarists, etc…). But, anyways, the fact is that it failed…If not you all would know about it, would you?

So, why paying attention to a lost cause like this one? Well, as you may have suspected already, June is the month we have decided to dedicate to all this good ideas that for some reason or another did not had the impact desired in their times. But that they failed then does not mean they cannot succeed now. Who knows, with all these crises around the world, all this suffering and war, lack of resources…Humanity is screaming for a change…Maybe it is time to look back in history, and give the Lebensreform another chance…Even if it is just recycling a couple of good ideas, we can make changes happen…

So please, lsiten to this message: do not give up on something just because it did not work once…Things just not suddenly happen, they need effort…Maybe you can take a couple of ideas from this or our following posts.

References:

Weindling, P., Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge, 1989)

Thomas, R.H., Nietzsche in German Politics and Society, 1890-1918 (Manchester, 1983)

http: //swiki.hfbk-hamburg.de:8888/Lebensreform/10.diff?id=43

Working Class Gender Roles in the Victorian Age

Much like the previous post, this one is guilty of being the topic of an essay and presentation for Women in History. “Why do a whole presentation on it?” you ask, “Surely it’s obvious what the gender roles were!” This is true, and you only need to think of a stereotypical Victorian family to get the general idea – man works, woman has babies and cleans. However, my intention is to look a little deeper and, more specifically, at the working class.

It makes sense to focus mostly on childhood, as I have only got limited space and this was when the whole gender separation began. Up until the age of about six, boys and girls were treated the same – they even put boys in dresses (something I would love to see brought back now – if any reader has a brother, wouldn’t it be fantastic to see them in a dress!?). At about six, boys went through a formal ceremony when they were “breeched”. They were given their first trousers and had their hair cut, and on top of that, had a party with cake and fun – there was not an equivalent of this for girls. From this point onwards, it is easy to spy the differences between gender roles.

Girls were almost always expected to act as “little mothers” to their siblings. They would be made to look after the younger children, often sitting on the doorstep with the baby while watching the others as they played. Some playgrounds and play groups allowed girls to bring ‘their’ babies along with them, knowing that there would be no one to care for the child otherwise. With the dawn of industry, most women would be working in factories or similar work at home, which meant there was no time to look after the children themself. Boys, on the other hand, were allowed to run wild in many cases. They were allowed to play outside and were not tied down with younger siblings like their female counterparts.

School is another case where the gender division is clear. Girls had much worse attendance than boys – most cases of girls’ absence from school was them being kept home to mind younger siblings. Illness or new baby or something similar meant that the girl would be kept home. Girls were more likely to be late or called out during the school day to help their mothers – boys less so, as the types of jobs they did (paper rounds/milk or bread delivery) were early and did not affect them too much. The curriculum was wildly different – girls had to do needlework, knitting, cooking, clothing, food, laundry, the duties of servants, household expenses of a labouring man and his family, savings banks, the nature of interest and the practical rules, personal and domestic, for the preservation of health. Playgrounds and classes were separated by gender and there were in fact fewer places for girls at state-subsidised schools.

Children often left school for work at 11/12 – unless the family could afford for them to have an apprenticeship if they were a boy. A daughter would usually stay at home on leaving school and help with the house and any younger siblings, whereas a boy would be expected to get a job and help with the money situation. Girls usually stayed in the family economy until marriage – either at home, helping their mother with home-based work or childcare, or as a residential domestic servant (sending part of their pay to her family every month). Girls were obviously relied upon a lot more in the household, and given far less freedom than their brothers. This is made even more obvious when you look at medical studies which have shown far higher rates of anaemia and poor eyesight among girls than boys. This is a side effect of them having to do needlework and domestic chores in the poor light indoors, and also of them receiving less meat and protein than the boys.

To conclude, the gender roles of the time were just as limited and stereotypical as we believe them to be. Women were the ones who stayed at home to care for their children and their men – though a lot of the time, the childcare was delegated to the oldest daughter of the family. Men and boys, on the other hand, had far more freedom. The man was the breadwinner and his sons were expected to follow in his footsteps, becoming reliable working men, while their wives kept their homes running behind the scenes. It really makes you wonder what on earth would have happened if there were not any women around. Personally, I think society would have collapsed.

Why Did British Women Fail to Get the Vote by 1914?

Today’s history post is entitled why did British women fail to get the vote by 1914, and it was set to me as a presentation as part of my work for my Women in history module. I know that women’s history is a relatively new area in the context of history and I find it really fascinating, perhaps it is because it looks at women which traditional history seems to miss out unless they are incredibly important or they fail to conform to the stereotyped Gender Roles of their contemporary society, or its perhaps a result of what my friends jokingly call me feminist leanings. Whatever the case, I hope you enjoy my latest post on why it took so long for women to get the vote.

It is necessary to briefly look at the background and events of the campaign before going through the main reasons for the failure to achieve the vote by 1914. We begin with the 19th century ideas for a reform the voting system for men this also presented the opportunity for women to also try and change the system in order for them to vote. Perhaps the trigger for women’s suffrage was James Mill’s claim that women did not need the vote as their husbands and fathers would protect their interests.

With the first reform act in 1832 Henry Hunt attempted to extend the vote to unmarried women with property but this was rejected and for the first time women were explicitly excluded from voting. In 1865 John Stuart Mill included women’s suffrage in his successful election campaign; however when the next reform came in1867 Mill proposed the change the words of the text from ‘men to person’ he was out voted by a majority of 194 to 73, demonstrating that many politicians were not ready to introduce women’s suffrage yet. The municipal corporations act in 1869 was a success for the suffrage movement as it allowed women to vote in local elections; although it can be argued as a success it still has limitations as the act only enfranchised single women rate payers, but it is significant as it set the precedent and women were subsequently given the right to vote on local school boards.

During this time women were often seen as the angel in the house and living in a separate sphere from men. These views didn’t include for women to have an interest in politics or an idea to change their own social situation. The women’s suffrage movement did a lot to change these ideas and perceptions of women, in trying to win the vote for them.

The women’s suffrage movement was made up of many diverse groups such as the NUWSS (National Union of Women’s Suffrage societies);WSPU (women’s social and political union); the WLF (women’s liberal federation) and the WFL (women’s freedom league). This is just a small sample of the variety of women and men who were supportive of women’s suffrage throughout this period.

Divisions

A political force is perhaps stronger when it is united and although divisions can be useful putting pressure on the government from all angles, however it does not help when the divisions lead to confusion over the long term goals of the movement and who is and is not a member of the movement, for example probably the most famous division between the NUWSS and the WSPU this along with the many other divisions has prompted the question would the vote come earlier if the movement was not so divided.
From the beginning political division was a main factor in the failure for women to achieve the vote; the Conservatives within the group would not work with the radicals and later the Liberals , within the WSPU they later divided from the Independent labour Party thus alienating a potential political force. This division on political leanings caused split amongst members as to which section of the group they belonged to. Also this cost them too much time which could have been more affectively used if they were all stood together regardless of political alliance on this issue.

The political division lead o to division on the goal of women’s suffrage, although this might appear obvious in actual fact t was far from straight forward; where they about getting the vote for women; improving social conditions for women; was the vote to be for universal suffrage if not who was the vote for. For example the movement was split over the repeal of the contagious diseases act with some embers like Millicent Fawcett not wishing to associate the movement, for fear it would discredit the suffrage movement this caused a split within the movement. Furthermore the issue as to whether to include married women in the suffrage also caused a split with the conservatives arguing for only single women voters and liberals for universal suffrage. Along with the refusal of the separate groups within the suffrage movement refusing to work with other groups, this leads to confusion over whom, what and who with are we fighting for. Which can be argued as causing the delay in British women achieving the vote by 1914, and can lead to the suggestion that the vote might have come earlier had the movement not been so divided.

Tactics

Another important factor in the failure for women to achieve the vote by 1914 is the tactics used by all groups within the suffrage movement to get the vote for women. It would always be a difficult issue whether to use peaceful or more aggressive tactics and a successful balance of these might have helped women to gain the vote earlier then 1914. However this is not what happened as the WSPU’s gradual increase into militancy and the use of such militant tactics was a controversial issue even to contemporises. For example Millicent Fawcett and the NUWSS originally approved of the WSPU’ civil disobedience tactics, such as disrupting politicians meetings but what they did not approve of was the militancy that it later became, as the WSPU took to breaking windows of , rushing the house of commons, committing arson on both public and private property, they even attacked the prime minister Herbert Asquith the liberal prime minister and his car. These violent militant tactics do have the use of being able o stir up propaganda for the cause which was a good thing at the same time the acts of violence plays into the hand of the opposition who said that women were hormonal unstable creatures who would not be able to vote properly.

A more peaceful tactic used in the early 20th century was for the women of the suffrage movement to refuse to work for politicians. After the corrupt and illegal practices act women were paid and some volunteered to work for politicians by canvassing their areas to encourage voters and inform about their party’s manifesto, this obviously was often a great help to the politicians hoping to get elected. However during the early 20th century the women of the suffrage movement refused to do the work for perspective members of parliament who had not pledged to include women’s suffrage included their campaign. The impact of this tactic is debatable but at least it is successful as it manages to get women’s rights on the majority of the mp’s election campaigns.

Opposition

The final area which has an impact on the failure for women to get the vote by 1914 is the opposition that they faced both from the politicians and the general public, two very important groups of people that the suffrage movement would have to persuade in order to be successful. Women’s suffrage came at a time when public opinion towards women was that they were still weak and inconsistent and supposed to be the Victorian ideal of an angel in the house living in a separate sphere from men. This suggests that the women’s suffrage movement had a harder task as they had to change the politicians and the public’s opinions of women in order to get them the vote, on equal terms to men. Politicians are probably the most important group of people that the suffrage movement have to persuade in order to succeed. However as we know with politicians today they cannot be trusted or relied upon too easily. For example in the late 19th century Prime Minister William Gladstone was a great hope for women’s suffrage as both a liberal and a reformer it was hoped that he would be the one to bring in women’s votes. This proved to not be the case as Gladstone used party loyalty to destroy one bill in 1870 and a further amendment in 1884 which could have provided women’s suffrage even on a limited scale. Both times Gladstone uses party loyalty to destroy the bills, by simply declaring his opposition to the movements Gladstone opens up conflict within his politician’s party loyalty or what they believe in. With the 1884 amendment Gladstone was successful in persuading 104 liberal politicians to oppose the movement they previously supported.

Also the politicians were heavily relied upon, although they were perhaps the main way in which women’s votes could be achieved they can always be trusted as shown by the action of liberal prime ministers for example Herbert Asquith kept postponing the reading of the latest bills and Henry Campbell- Bannerman said it was unrealistic for the NUWSS to expect the liberal government to enforce women’s suffrage legislation.

Lastly the anti suffrage movement can be considered as another reason why the campaign for the vote took so long. As I already said the idea of women at this time was so fixed in people’s expectations and ideas that it would be a hard task to change this and it wouldn’t happen overnight. Attacked as unfeminine and suggested as attacking mans masculinity are very big obstacles for women’s suffrage to overcome.

To conclude the main causes for the failure for women’s suffrage movement are division, tactics and opposition. However the idea of failure can be questioned, considering that women did not get the vote on an equal scale till 1928, and then yes they did fail by 1914. However the hurdles they faced in publics opinion of women is a big factor which would never have been easily overcome. Also they were close in 1914 to getting the vote and had many politicians on their side, therefore who knows what would have happened if world war one did not break out when it did, and the fact that in 1918 women over 30 get the vote is an example of how far they had come by 1914, alright this is a limited group of women and is not equal to a man’s voting age but it is a beginning.

By Sophie .