Talk:Emily Murphy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

emily murphy helped the women and childern of today. http://www.linkmeup.com/emilymurphy/

Contents 1 Valiant Five used instead of Famous Five 2 NPOV 3 famous(e) five? 4 Was Murphy a racist?

[edit] Valiant Five used instead of Famous Five

I was about to make a "Famous Five" article, but realized it already exists at "Valiant Five". So, for now, that's the name to use, to be consistent with the existing article. I always heard "Famous Five", but honestly don't know which is more popular. I guesse neither is particularly NPOV. If anybody changes it, be sure to change the main article, and all references appropriately. --rob 5 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This article is in need of serious work. Very strong accusations about Murphy have been inserted without adequate citations. For example: Calling Murphy a "white supremacist" would have to be supported by a reputable source. The citation given is an article by John Akpata writing in the Ottawa Express. He doesn't call her a white supremacist in the article. The closest he comes is the following two passages:

Emily Murphy was also closely associated with the Orange Order, an organization of Irish-descended Protestants who advocated a European-based system of apartheid. They were exclusionary to Catholics, and all non-white persons, and closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan. From 1922 to 1937 the Klan was active in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.[1]

He says she was "closely associated with the Orange Order..." (whatever that means). Then he goes on to draw a link between the Orange Order and the KKK. Akpata gives no references to back these claims. In a paragraph on eugenics, Akpata elides to discussing the Nazi program:

The Nazis systematically murdered millions of people, based upon the ideologies of white supremacy and ethnic cleansing. Their tactics included mass murder, controlled breeding, and sterilization.

Are we to conclude from this that people who believed in eugenics (a majority in Alberta at that time), also advocated mass murder? Another thing Akpata bandies about is the idea that Murphy was somehow responsible for the introduction of legislation:

Judge Emily Murphy approved all the legislation that passed through her bench at the time, which included all of the Chinese exclusion acts, the Indian Act of 1923 and the Residential School Act of 1925. From 1923 to 1980, the Canadian government took native children off their designated reservation, to be raised by Christian-run schools and dormitories.

This is rich! Judges do not "approve" legislation. It is legislators who do that. However, judges are sworn to uphold the law and pass judgement on those charged with transgressing it. My point is that an article from a tabloid that engages in this sort of smear and inuendo does not pass as a reliable source. Therefore I am reverting these statements until someone can produce either a) direct quotes from Murphy, or b) a reliable source to support these assertions. I will begin editing for NPOV; look for reliable sources, and trust that others will join in to bring this article up to standard. Sunray 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] famous(e) five?

errr... thanks for the copy editing Sunray. And for putting in the references. seriously sloppy work on my part. -- TheMightyQuill 17:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate those references you added. Sunray 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Murphy a racist?

I'm reading the Black Candle and note that her thinking is much more sophisticated than this article gives her credit for. I think it would make sense to use direct quotes from her for issues relating to eugenics, immigration and race. It is way off the mark to call her a racist. She was actually fairly innovative in her thinking, counselled against knee-jerk racism, and developed some fairly enlightened approaches to dealing with drugs. Sunray 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed the link to the book. Thanks for pointing it out. I definitely think you're right that the article unfairly portrays her thinking as simplistic. She clearly doesn't fit into the yellow peril, Asiatic Exclusion League hysteria of the day, but I certainly don't think it's way off the mark to call her a racist:

"One becomes especially disquieted—almost terrified—in face of these things, for it sometimes seems as if the white race lacks both the physical and moral stamina to protect itself, and that maybe the black and yellow races may yet obtain the ascendancy. Indeed, this seems possible—even probable—unless the enslavement which comes from these abhorrent and debasing narcotics can be strongly and speedily dealt with."

She's not blaming asians or blacks for the decline of "whites," (though she says later that they seem to enjoy watching white men fall) but her anti-drug politics are couched eugenics, her framework is racial, and she is clearly determined to "preserve the white race." Certainly, definitions of racism vary, but by my definition, "white pride" qualifies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Themightyquill.

Ah, but context is everything. No doubt she is a proud citizen of the British Empire. However, she is a realist and is well-informed about who is behind the drug trade:

... Dr. Erwin C. Ruth, head of the Narcotic division of the International Revenue Department of Boston... alleges that the opium and cocaine traffic is financed largely by interests in Germany and Great Britain...

Among the pedlars who are the agents of the Ring, the traffic is chiefly in the hands of Americans, Canadians, Chinese, Negroes, Russians and Italians, although the Assyrians and Greeks and running closely in the race.

Her style of writing often mocks people who are racist or imperialist:

It is claimed also, but with what truth we cannot say, that there is a well-defined propaganda among the aliens of color to bring about the degeneration of the white race.

Maybe, it isn't so, after all, the popular dictum which has something to do with a flag and a bulldog...

Here she is mocking British chauvinism, but you have to read the full context to get it. If one were to just refer to the first sentence, it would seem that she was indeed a racist. Sunray 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. She's not blaming other races for the "degeneration" of the "white race," but she is concerned about the decline of the "white race." And she suggests limiting immigration to help save the "white race." I don't think it's a simplistic, knee-jerk racism, but the fact that she continously couches her arguments in racial terms, in my opinion, makes her racist. We may just have to disagree on this. -- TheMightyQuill 07:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling her a racist is arguable and would constitue original research unless one could quote from a reliable source. What is not dealt with (certainly in this article, but generally) is Canada's history of orientalism and racism in the first half of the twentieth century. It is within that context that Murphy navigated. Sunray 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It may be arguable since racism is not (pardon the pun) a black and white issue, but it's not original research. I challenge you to find a modern piece of writing on Murphy that doesn't address her racism.

The penalties became much more severe in the early 1920s when a massive drug panic, closely tied to a renewed campaign for Chinese Exclusion, swept the nation. It started when the practiced social reformer Emily Murphy published a series of five sensationalist articles in Maclean's magazine. In them, she described the physical and moral deterioration of addicts and explained that drug use led white women to sleep with blacks and Asians, posing a serious threat to the white race. The first article was accompanied by a spooky drawing of a hand with long fingernails holding a Chinese tablet, a picture of a wizened Asian man with smoke coming out of his ears, and a photo of an Asian man smoking a pipe, making it clear that this was a Chinese menace. -- Catherine Carstairs (assistant professor of history at UBC) on The Racist Roots of Canada's Drug Laws in "Beaver" a Canadian history journal.

When, in 1924, a Chinese cafe-owner in Regina challenged a law forbidding him to hire white women, much of Canada's liberal and progressive leadership seems to have gone mad with sexual frenzy. Chatelaine magazine, Alberta magistrate Emily Murphy, the local Council of Women and the Regina Women's Labour League all spouted racist paranoia about the perils of white women in the clutches of "yellow" men. -- A review of Connie Backhouse's "Colour-Coded, A Legal History of Racism in Canada 1900-1950." in Herizons Journal

"Emily Murphy has long been acknowledged as a racist" -- Adele Perry, Department of History University of Manitoba, in American Review of Canadian Studies; Autumn 2005

In The Black Candle and other writings, Emily Murphy expressed stereotypical and prejudiced views about various racial and ethnic groups. -- Collections Canada

-- TheMightyQuill 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of these quotes address racism in Canada and include references to Black Candle, and Murphy, but stop short of calling her "racist" (e.g. with statements like "... spouted racist paranoia"). I think I have shown that, although she does express racist notions in Black Candle, they are always set within a context that does not allow one to conclude that she is a "racist" per se.

The last two quotes you give speak directly to the question. The quote by Perry would be useable if she backs up her assertion with primary references of her own. There an obvious tendency for people from a particular political persuasion to attempt to tar Murphy with the brush of racism (e.g. John Akpata, as outlined above). To say that she is an "acknowledged racist" is simply a throwaway line. Acknowledged by whom? Based on what research? The quote from Collections Canada is probably useable in our article because it is demonstrably true. But it too needs the full context:

In The Black Candle and other writings, Emily Murphy expressed stereotypical and prejudiced views about various racial and ethnic groups. Like many Anglo -Protestants of her time, Emily Murphy believed that social problems of the era, such as poverty, prostitution, alcohol and drug abuse, were linked to the influx of immigrants into western Canada. These views informed some aspects of her social and legal reform work. Collections Canada

BTW, it doesn't matter whether we hold the same point of view, but we (users) do need to agree on how we will address this in the article. Sunray 18:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

None of the arguments here that Murphy was not a racist are in the least bit convincing. I'm not on expert on her, but have read the Black Candle and other bits about her and am somewhat familiar with the context in which she is writing. Certainly, definitions do very, and the fact that the label "racist" is perjorative may make it seem that the subject is being insulted rather than described in an encyclopedic sort of way, i.e., not in a NPOV. There is, however, enough of a consensus in the world we live in that racism is a fairly clearly-defined phenomenon, and her racism does not detract from her role in the first wave feminist movement: saying she subscribed to a racist worldview is not the same as saying she was a jerk. Maybe she was a jerk, maybe she wasn't, but that's not the issue here. Some of the arguments here sound like the validity of the concept itself is in dispute. The controversial notion here, in light of established Canadian history, is that Murphy was NOT racist. For this reason, I think those making that claim are required to produce the evidence to the contrary, and I believe that would constitute original research.

Some reasons why I don't find these arguments credible:

-one does not have to be a simplistic "knee jerk" racist to be a racist. Racists have gone to great pains to develop sophisticated analyses. Murphy was addressing an educated audience, and was trying to present a sophisticated worldview, which happened to be racist. No one's saying her racism was vulgar.

-context has little to do with it unless someone's views are being distorted by not accounting for the context in which they lived. Just because it was normal for educated, middle class women in positions of influence to subscribe to the view that, for example, the white race was threatened, does not mean that they were not racist (what exactly was posing the danger to the white race if not other races?). The term is "presentism" when you import a modern notion back to an era when that notion did not exist, and consequently misrepresent that era. That is not the case here, because the concept "race" did exist and people like Murphy subscribed to it and propagated it. It was also normal for Chinese and other non-whites to complain about racial discrimination, and occasionally, engage in acts of resistance.

-There is no question that Emily Murphy believed a) that race was a natural, biologically determined category, and b)that racial categories existed in a hierarchy and ought to be treated as such, i.e., white people were superior to non-whites, etc. This understanding is no longer accepted as valid by credible authorities on the subject - and is racist.

These issues are important because Emily Murphy was influential in the legal establishment, and therefore had a role in laws that people were forced to live under. The early war on drugs absolutely was racist and racially targeted people for discrimation. White women being lured into the drug scene by scary black men and shifty Chinamen was alarming to Murphy and others of her ilk. Perhaps she represented a step forward from the Asiatic Exclusion League because she did not feel the remedy was mob violence. In any case, the race section of the article seems more concerned with defending her from charges of racism than describing the significance of her views on race, and needs fixing. I'll give it a shot at some point when I have time, in the meantime, I welcome any good faith responses to my spiel. Cheers, Bobanny 18:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonial society, as it existed in Western Canada at that time was indeed racist by today's standards. Why then would we call Murphy racist when we don't do the same for other public figures of that era from Alberta? The answer is that unless we are a respected theorist, such as Edward Said or a researcher who has carefully analysed the question, we simply cannot make such an assertion here. What I am saying is that we cannot state in an encyclopeda article that "Murphy was a racist" unless we have a citation from a reputable source who is basing his or her comment on analysis of proven facts rather than merely stating an opinion. In short, we need a reliable source for any such statement. Sunray 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The point here seems to be relevance; that the point of agreement that a consensus could be arrived at here is that her racism in itself is not relevant and not the reason she deserves an encyclopedic entry. But nor should it be clouded over, which is what the Cashman quote does now. He claims to be making the point that her racism does not negate her positive accomplishments. It's used as a red herring in this context, but is nonetheless true, as is the reverse: her positive accomplishments should not negate her racism.

My suggestion is, and I'm willing to give it a shot, is to edit this so that it neither states "Emily Murphy was a racist," nor, like it does now, defend her against charges of racism, that we shouldn't "make fun of her" because she is a racist or judge her as racist. That's the problem with this section for me, and what makes it non-encyclopedic and non-NPOV. If the debate over her racism is to be kept, it should be described rather than argued, as it is now. Frankly, I don't see the need to include the debate at all and that instead the article should stick to Murphy, not focus on us and our debates. I can't do it right now, but I'll put it on my to do list, and will try and be as precise and descriptive as I can and stick close to the evidence (and not be offended if its gets reverted).Bobanny 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me and I will support any efforts to make this article more NPOV. Sunray 08:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I redid the section on race; the rest of this article still needs cleaning up though. After reading up on Murphy, the final product is different from what I stated I would do. I did try and represent the different camps in a balanced way, and tried to account for comments here as well as academic and non-academic views, which is tricky. Hopefully its more nuanced than than it is muddled. NPOV could still be questioned here, but probably always could with such a controversial subject. There is but a fine line separating editing from censorship. Go nuts if this section still needs tweaking to make it NPOV.Bobanny 15:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You have done this article a great service, IMO, by covering the topic in a fair and balanced manner. I will do some editing, but I think you have achieved NPOV by presenting the various sides of the argument and backing them up with appropriate references. Nice work! Sunray 23:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm quite impressed Bobanny. Good work. -- TheMightyQuill 23:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)