History of Native American

...

In conclusion, I think that perhaps due to her personal experience where she witnessed slavery when she was young in her classroom and another witness of this sin when she revisited her mother when she was an adult, the fear haunted her through her life and stimulated her to change by abolishing this disgusting institution. And religious factor had also impacted her very much after she joined the Quaker and were given a chance to lead the discussion among females where she learnt how to express her views and gradually led to her belief that women can also talk and express themselves in public just as what men did and this further led to the advocate of gender equality in politics and social institutions. And because of this gender equality issue where women felt that they were not much different from being a slave, they were more sympathised towards their slave counterparts as they were more likely to understand their situations, and this led to the call for abolishment of slavery dominated by women.

This article, “Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism, with reference to the duty of American Females” is written by Catherine Beecher in 1837. It was written to express her goal of feminising the teaching profession by giving a more practicable and viable solution for a gradual transformation of female rights and female education. As compared to Angelina’s ambitious idea of reforming females in a speedy and courageous way, hers focussed on a more realistic approach to reform women and although it might seem to make less difference, her approach is actually more practicable so as to avoid facing more obstacles and criticisms from the public. The information provided is based on her first-hand experience as she was raised in that era where females were in a subordinate position to men and in fact, she was a renowned female seminary in Connecticut and was promoting feminization of teachings to enable women at that time to support themselves.

The purpose of this article is to provide a more reasonable and practicable solution for women to be educated and at the same time, gradually improve women’s inferior roles to enable them to contribute to the society rather than just being confined to their domestic roles. With that, we couldn’t say frankly that she was trying to uphold or preach women’s rights but she was trying her best to gradually improve their situations after all, Rome was not built in a day, and obviously it takes time to uplift the women’s positions to give them equal rights to dominate politics and social activities just as men. The article is based on the setting that women were subjected to their domestic roles and men were the ones who dominated political and social reforms. Beecher expressed her disagreement with the measures proposed by Angelina which was quite radical and impracticable to be achieved in a short time. She claimed that the measures proposed were not expedient for implementation and it was unlikely that the women in the North would join the Abolition of slavery.

She proposed that mere rebukes and reprimands on the sin of slavery putting the blame on the whites would not help to ease the tension as to the abolition of slavery. Instead, it would lead to chaos in the nation causing them to severe from each other due to the differences in their beliefs. Some of the states might choose to continue the slavery practice and choose not to deviate from the original practice, let alone putting a stop at it. In fact, calls for immediate change and immediate abolition of slavery which had been practiced by the nation in the North and South were unlikely to be implemented in the society in a short time. In my opinion, given that you only have a short period to change someone’s beliefs, it is in fact somehow hard to change people’s perceptions and beliefs in which they have been raised for years. So Beecher’s argument is quite true.

She also emphasised that females should not become a partisan to advocate for the abolishment of slavery but rather should be mediators to resolve conflicts between the opponents and supporters of the abolishment. But ironically, she also mentioned that females should be allowed nonetheless, to avow their opinions as to whether slavery should be abolished in a decent manner, rather than advocating or opposing the abolishment radically. She also mentioned that females should influence others for the sake of peace and forbearance but not to incite public sentiments that caused chaos. Well, generally for sure, as a girl born and raised in the 21st century, I disagree with her. I challenge her view as to why women are not allowed to advocate beliefs and ideas just as men do if they have solid reasons for that. While agreeing that avowing your opinions in a decent manner will avoid criticisms and troubles, I also oppose her view that women should be subject to a decent manner unlike men when they express themselves and their opinions, wouldn’t it be unfair to women? However, if I am to stand from her view in her shoes, I would agree that she tends to think like this as women in the past were expected to behave and were not even allowed to express their views in the public. She indeed tried to improve their position by agreeing that women should be allowed to express their views albeit in a decent manner. However, I will appreciate if she can elaborate more and clarify on the point as to how women were expected to resolve the conflicts between the supporters and opponents of abolition movement. Should they take a stand or should they come to no conclusion and just stand neutral throughout the mediation which will mean that they were not allowed to take a stand and express their views on the issue? I am curious to find out about this.

Angelina also described the women’s positions in the 19th century where men were more superior to women. Women were not expected to participate in and engaged with the society actively like men as they played a subordinate role in the society. They could only exercise their influence domestically but not beyond the domestic level. This means that they could only change their households but not their community and their nation. I could hardly accept this fact that women’s roles in the society were restricted. How sad it is to know that women’s thoughts and contributions to the society were denied and what a loss it is to the nation without all of them. However, in retrospect, this isn’t a bad thing after all. If we think in another way, by being able to influence their domestic households, this means that there is still a chance for women to change their society indirectly through their households change. For example, her boys might be able to change the society had she took a step to change their perspectives in their childhood. What Beecher said might be irritating