[harrumph]

You are unsurprisingly incorrect on the history. I say unsurprising, because history is a humanities study, and HN is home to many who are effectively humanities-illiterate, and who tend to mistake a well-rounded education with their own abilities to operate and occasionally build technology.

Agitation for women's rights, including suffrage, first appeared formally in the US east in the 1840s. Suffrage was radicalism of a historic part with abolitionism, a radicalism over which a giant and entirely justified civil war would be fought and won by the emancipators in twenty or so years. Emancipation is the central theme of radical left thought, and here is no exception; while capitalism and imperialism went effectively unexamined theoretically until Marx in about the same decade, there is no left radical idea before or after that fails to hew to emancipatory ideals in the US.

Speaking of failure, it appears as if you've failed to "observe the real world" of historic occurrence, and have done so in pursuit of an ideology -- a weak, vacuous, change-nothing, injustice-friendly centrist ideology. I suggest you heed your own advice.

To review: left radical ideas become mainstream and improve the society when they do. The chief opponent of this mainstreaming is not the radical right, but rather the enormous, cowardly middle, whose political emptiness has always been the greatest friend and enabler to those who enslave us.

[mythrwy]

So the first states to grant women's suffrage were?

And this was a result somehow of political radicalism?

This is your own example BTW that you have gone on and on about "women's suffrage".

You think somehow I didn't sit in many humanities classes and thus am not "educated" after run down I gave you in last post? Cmmon my friend.

You could lose the hostile revolution tone. It isn't actually cool outside of a few college campuses, and truth be told, it isn't really cool there either.

Thread is getting too skinny so you can have last post. I'll read it but am out.

[eesmith]

Given your extensive humanities classes, perhaps you can tell us about the role of Hamilton Wilcox, a New York suffragist, in advocating for Utah as an experiment for granting suffrage to woman, and the special role that polygamy played in that issue.

While you're at it, could you describe how Colorado and Idaho - two of the first states to allow women to vote - could be described as "very very non leftist places" and yet had strong support for the left-wing People's Party, aka, The Populists. The Populists helped push for woman's suffrage in those states. For example, Governor Davis H. Waite of Colorado, who campaigned for the right of women to vote in Colorado, was a Populist. And Colorado and Idaho supported Weaver (a Populist) in 1892.

It's almost like those states were leftist places.

Oh, but you're out of oumfph, so I guess I'll have the last word by responding to your questions:

1) The first states to grant women suffrage included Utah, Colorado, and Idaho.

2) It was a result of political radicalism. a) For Utah, most of the US was against polygamy and giving women the right to vote was considered a way to kill off polygamy. It backfired. (Some suffragettes were against granting women in Utah the right to vote until polygamy was outlawed, so it's confusing.)

b) For Colorado, the national suffragette organizations sent people to the state to organize, and the movement was explicitly connected to the economic issues facing male working-class voters. The example at https://blog.elevationscu.com/womens-suffrage-colorado/ is "The merciless power of the plutocracy that crushes you crushes us also".

This was effective because the working class people in those states were left-wing, starting unions, etc.

See, I paid attention in high school when we studied the populist movement, so I knew the west was pretty leftist in the late 1800s. I didn't just sit there like you apparently did.

[mythrwy]

"Among...Included" (excludes the first, Wyoming).

Conflates populist and leftist radical. Throws in some insults as insurance /r/iamverysmart style hoping no one catches the switch.

Literally nothing in that post actually supports the point that leftist radicals are responsible for early women's suffrage in US states.

Not out of oomph. Out of patience. Adderall style google foo writing and people repeating the same thing over and over more stridently with no real backing isn't really of interest to me. If we can't be civil no need in discussing here anyway.

[eesmith]

Ahh, that's right - your "left radical" definition required destruction on the part of the radical.

It's a sort of reverse No True Scotsman that anyone else cannot be a left radical.

'Course, that's not what 'radical' means, but it's what you've been pushing.

You have yet to demonstrate the it's meaningful to describe Populist-supporting Colorado of the 1890s as a 'very very non leftist place'. I can't help but conclude that you continue to "[throw] in some insults as insurance /r/iamverysmart style hoping no one catches the switch."

Your humanities training left you with a curious inability to explain yourself. All you do is castigate and laugh, Nelson-style.

[harrumph]

Thank you.

Weaksauce centrism: it's a helluva drug.