The Rights Movements and the Women Who Drove Them

A Brief History of the Rights Movements in the Twentieth Century

The twentieth century was a period of duality. It produced some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen, particularly in relation to human rights violations. The Holocaust, Apartheid, the First and Second World Wars, the Cold War, and many military conflicts that developed between and within nations all occurred during this period. Figures including Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Franco, Tse-tung, and Amin ruled with appalling tyranny.

But the twentieth century also produced some of the greatest triumphs for human rights the world has ever seen. Women’s suffrage, the formation of the United Nations, the end of racial segregation in the United States of America, the gay pride movement, and the most significant achievement being the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights.¹ The twentieth century saw the likes of Gandhi, Mandela, Malcolm X, Nehru, Parks, and King. What was a century of devastation, was also a century emblazoned with hope.

Two key figures in the rights movements of the twentieth century were heroine Suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst, and Eleanor Roosevelt, the ‘driving force’² behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both women contributed enormously to their respective rights movements. Both were born into privilege and wealth, and made it their life’s mission to eliminate an unjust system based on inequality. Where Pankhurst’s ideology never wavered throughout her life, Roosevelt’s changed remarkably from supporting the civic rules she lived by to being a leader of change. Removing the rules and rebuilding a society brick-by-brick into a more equal, more tolerant place.

Emmeline Pankhurst was born into a middle-class, wealthy family and belonged to the ‘political elite’³. Her politics started out as liberal, but soon turned socialist. She founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903 along with her daughter Christabel. What began as a peaceful organisation with the standard propaganda literature, organised meetings, and the lobbying and petitioning of government, turned into a radical, militarised movement⁴. The WSPU’s peaceful attempts to gain women’s enfranchisement proved ineffective and thus, Pankhurst adopted a violent approach that was informed by her involvement in radical socialist politics. Even when her health deteriorated after participating in hunger strikes, Emmeline continued her aggressive approach and advocated for others to do the same.

Pankhurst’s pre-suffrage and post-suffrage activities have been overlooked in historical studies, with the focus on the Suffragettes overshadowing her other social campaigns. She continually developed politically, as demonstrated by her political alignments over the span of her life, but her goal always remained the same – ‘greater social and economic justice’⁵. Women’s suffrage was merely a component of a much larger campaign. Pankhurst’s wavering political alignments could be seen as indecisive However, when one is to look at her goal of ‘greater social and economic justice’, it is evident that Pankhurst did not allow political loyalty to get in the way of her ideal of social betterment.

The First World War had a significant impact on women’s rights movements and on Emmeline Pankhurst’s politics in particular. The workforce was largely depleted by the war due to voluntary enlistment and conscription. Unskilled women workers were hired to fill the jobs left by the men at war, working in factories and producing the munitions that were in such high demand⁶. Pankhurst was active in this arena, suspending her suffrage activities to assist the war effort. She met with Lloyd George, then Minster of Munitions, and persuaded him to launch training programs for women working in munitions production⁷. She also supported conscription, both military and industrial⁸.

Pankhurst’s political affiliation with the Labour Party was over by the end of the war. She declared them to be outdated and argued that they ‘wanted to abolish the bourgeoisie, whereas she wanted to abolish the proletariat by wiping out class difference and giving a middle-class lifestyle to the working class’⁹. The Women’s Party was co-founded by Emmeline and her daughter Christabel at the end of the war. Like its predecessor the WSPU, the Women’s Party consisted solely of female members. With women’s suffrage finally given to British women over 30 and subject to certain conditions on 6 February 1918, the Women’s Party focused on broader issues of gender and social equality¹⁰. The end of the war also saw Emmeline’s politics shift to a more conservative stance. She opposed Bolshevism and became interested in sexual politics. Her stance on venereal diseases being a moral issue rather than a medical one has been widely discussed by social commentators and historians¹¹.

Today, Emmeline is remembered as a heroine of the Suffragettes, but throughout the twentieth century this depiction was markedly different¹². Much of this portrayal can be linked to her daughter Sylvia’s The Suffragette Movement: an intimate account of persons and ideals (1931). Sylvia became increasingly at odds with her mother and sister Christabel over their political ideals. She became a founding member of the British Communist Party at the time when Emmeline turned away from socialist politics¹³. Emmeline aligned herself with the Conservative Party, announcing her candidature in the general election. The following year, Sylvia gave birth to a son out of wedlock, which could not have been more contrary to her mother’s post-suffrage moral-sexual politics.

In the years shortly preceding The Suffragette Movement and for the decades that followed, Emmeline was portrayed as a traitor to the cause. Her socialist ideals had vanished with her alignment with the Conservatives. It was not until the beginning of the twenty-first century that Emmeline Pankhurst was attributed the heroine title and her actions became regarded not as traitorous, but in line with a broader social equality campaign. Now, Emmeline’s actions and motives have become clear through the outcomes of her work, but it is understandable how her actions, her constant political deviations, would seem contrary to social equality movements. Emmeline should be recognised for seeing the bigger picture, not only for the reality that she lived in, but for envisaging the future social change would bring. For understanding the fluidity of society and the stagnation of politics. Her shifting political affiliations reveal forethought and insight into her consistent goal of ‘greater social and economic justice’, though at the time they appeared to be the traitorous actions of a visionless woman.

Eleanor Roosevelt was not a First Lady of the United States who dutifully agreed with all of her husband’s politics, nor did she stand quietly by his side smiling demurely while having no opinions of her own. Eleanor Roosevelt was a formidable woman. An outspoken activist. A pursuant of equality. A wife who would openly disagree with her husband, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, when her opinions were contrary to his own¹⁴. Her activism and commitment to the human and civil rights movements grew throughout her husband’s presidency and after his death. Like Emmeline Pankhurst she refused to yield her beliefs, though she was not as radicalised as Pankhurst, she was still just as committed to her cause.

Eleanor Roosevelt - circa 1925 - Source

Roosevelt, like Pankhurst, came from a wealthy family who were active in the political sphere. Her uncle being Theodore Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth President of the United States of America. Eleanor’s political views were quite different in her early life than they were in her later years. Both Eleanor and her future husband Franklin ‘accepted their social status and their roles in high society without a second thought’¹⁵. This included accepting and participating in socially acceptable racist sentiments. It is important to note that Eleanor was not a supporter of women’s enfranchisement when her husband first announced his support prior to the First World War¹⁶. Eleanor Roosevelt’s first real foray into the world of politics happened when she joined the board of the League of Women Voters in 1921¹⁷. Prior to this she had been largely disinterested in politics, believing it to be the realm of men. Though it is evident by her joining the League of Women Voters that by 1921, her thoughts on the matter had changed.

During Franklin’s presidency, Eleanor became involved in campaigning for equal rights for African Americans and supported the anti-lynching campaign¹⁸. Her husband was quiet on the matter. He needed the support of Southern Democrats whose long-standing racist belief system could not allow equal rights for those they deemed to be less. The change in Eleanor’s acceptance of racism happened gradually as she began to befriend African American and Jewish leaders¹⁹. Eleanor became an active political figure during Franklin’s presidency, holding press conferences, writing columns, and engaging in public speaking arrangements. She made her views clear to the American public, even when they differed from that of her husband or his political party²⁰. She lobbied President Roosevelt and Congress with a group of female activists on multiple occasions²¹.

Eleanor’s influence on her husband can be seen in her plight to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race²². While Franklin relied on the political support of the South, Eleanor was able to convince him to sign an executive order that banned discrimination against African Americans in New Deal Programs and establish the Federal Council of Negro Affairs, which was comprised of African American leaders²³. Eleanor continued to throw her support behind the introduction of anti-lynching legislation, but it would not be until 2018 that such legislation was passed in the United States.

After Franklin’s death on 12 April 1945, Eleanor, though no longer in the White House, continued her efforts on civil rights reform²⁴. In the 1950s she began demanding an end to racial segregation²⁵. Eleanor’s greatest achievement, and perhaps one of the greatest achievements in the twentieth century, was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Eleanor became a member of the United States delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1945 at the request of President Harry Truman²⁶. During her tenure she was appointed to the Human Rights Commission where she chaired the drafting committee of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The Declaration sets out ‘fundamental human rights to be universally protected’²⁷, guaranteeing ‘the political, civil, economic, social, and cultural rights of the individual’²⁸. Roosevelt addressed the United Nations in 1946 stating that ‘the United States believes this is a good document–even a great document–and we propose to give it our full support’²⁹.

The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948 was a turning point in rights movements across the world. In 1952, Eleanor resigned from the United Nations as asked of her by Dwight D. Eisenhower, the new Republican President³⁰. She then joined the American Association for the United Nations, a volunteer organisation not connected to the United Nations in an official capacity³¹. For the remainder of her life, Eleanor Roosevelt worked tirelessly and devotedly in supporting human rights efforts.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Emmeline Pankhurst were two formidable women who changed the landscape of their respective rights movements, establishing key components of the rights that make up today’s society. It was not easy for either woman. Eleanor had to decondition herself of her own ingrained racism and learn to see the person, not the colour of their skin. Emmeline suffered physical trauma and became hated by one side for being too radical, while being called a traitor by the other for being too conservative. While both women came from privileged backgrounds, they desired to create a society where those who did not would be treated as equal. A society where no one is more or less, but where each individual is worth the same. An ideal that has not been reached. Yet.

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, The United Nations, n.p., viewed 25 January 2020, <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf>.

2. The United Nations n.d., The United Nations, n.p., viewed 25 January 2020, <https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/index.html>.

3. Bartley, P 2003, Emmeline Pankhurst, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

4. ibid

5. ibid

6. ibid

7. ibid

8. ibid

9. ibid

10. ibid

11. ibid

12. Purvis, J 2003, ‘Emmeline Pankhurst: a biographical interpretation’, Women’s History Review, vol. 12, no.1, pp. 73-102.

13. Purvis, J 2011, ‘Emmeline Pankhurst (1858-1928), suffragette leader and single parent in Edwardian Britain’, Women’s History Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 87-108.

14. ibid

15. ibid

16. ibid

17. ibid

18. ibid

19. ibid

20. ibid

21. ibid

22. Kirkwood-Tucker, TF 2011, ‘Eleanor Roosevelt and civil rights’, Social Education, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 245-249.

23. ibid

24. Cohen, WI 2009, Profiles in Humanity: The Battle for Peace, Freedom, Equality, and Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, USA.

25. ibid

26. ibid

27. The United Nations n.d., The United Nations, n.p., viewed 25 January 2020, <https://www.un.org/en/sections/universal-declaration/history-document/index.html>.

28. Cohen, WI 2009, Profiles in Humanity: The Battle for Peace, Freedom, Equality, and Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland, USA.

29. Eleanor Roosevelt: Address to UN on Human Rights 1958, online video, Alexander Street, Alexandria, Virginia, USA, viewed 30 January 2020, <https://search-alexanderstreet-com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/view/work/bibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C2776308>.

30. Johnson, MG 1987, ‘The contribution of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt to the development of international protection for human rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 19-48.

31. ibid