Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Expose Celebrity Psychics


Inside the Secret Sting Operations to Expose Celebrity Psychics

Are some celebrity mediums fooling their audience members by reading social media pages in advance? A group of online vigilantes is out to prove it.

Jack Hitt Special Feature for the New York Times

When you’re setting up fake Facebook pages, it’s the little details that can mess things up. On a group computer call last winter, Susan Gerbic was going through her checklist of tips for her team’s latest sting operation — this one focused on infiltrating the audience of a psychic. It all started with maintaining their Facebook sock puppets — those fake online profiles. “American spellings everyone!” she commanded her half-dozen international colleagues through the Skype crackle.

Gerbic lives in Salinas, Calif., and while she is retired from the routine world of work, she has taken on a new job, as self-appointed guardian of Enlightenment Reason. She spends most of her days wrangling her far-flung group of Guerrilla Skeptics into common cause, defending empirical truth online. This usually consists of editing and monitoring Wikipedia pages — a cat-herding task she says she’s uniquely qualified for. “I was a baby photographer,” she explained. “I ran a JCPenney portrait studio for 34 years.”

Collectively, the group, which has swelled to 144 members, has researched, written or revised almost 900 Wikipedia pages. Sure, they take on the classics, like debunking “spontaneous human combustion,” but many of their other pages have real-world impact. For instance, they straightened out a lot of grim hooey about the teen-suicide myth “blue whale game,” and they have provided facts about the Burzynski Clinic, a theoretical treatment for cancer operating out of Houston.

Most recently, Gerbic’s members have focused on what they call “grief vampires,” that is, the kind of middlebrow psychics who profit by claiming to summon the dead in shows in venues ranging from casinos or any old Motel 6 conference suite to wine vineyards or the Queen Mary permanently anchored in Long Beach. Some regional favorites may sound familiar — Theresa Caputo, the Long Island medium; or Chip Coffey, the “clairvoyant, clairaudient and clairsentient” psychic.

These are good, extremely profitable days for the ectoplasm-related industry. According to one market analysis, there are nearly 95,000 psychic “businesses” in America, generating some $2 billion in revenue in 2018. Lately, technology has changed the business of talking to the dead and created new kinds of openings for psychics to lure customers but also new ways for skeptics to flip that technology right back at them.

For instance, many psychics still rely on “cold readings,” in which the psychic uses clues, like your clothes or subtle body signals, to make educated, but generally vague, guesses about your life and family. But the internet has popularized a new kind of “hot reading,” in which the psychics come to their shows prepped with specific details about various members of the audience. One new source of psychic intel is Facebook, which has become a clearinghouse for the kind of insider, personal detail that psychics used to have to really sweat for. If anything, “the psychics have just gotten lazier,” a team member told me.

The crew invited to last winter’s Skype meeting had been vetted by Gerbic to participate in a mission called “Operation Peach Pit” (and I was invited to observe). On my computer screen, we resembled the opening credits of “The Brady Bunch,” a tick-tack-toe board of men and women ranging from Daniel in New Zealand, Ruth in London, Kimon in Alabama, Robert in Maine and Michelle near Humpty Doo, Australia. Matthew Fraser, the target, is a young Long Island psychic who resembles Tom Cruise in the role of an oversharing altar boy. He has been on the circuit for years, has a book under his belt and works some Doubletree or Crowne Plaza back room every two or three days.

These Guerrilla Skeptics are hoping to catch Fraser on tape spewing intimate Facebook details that are totally false about the person the psychic is addressing. In fact, the details aren’t true about anyone, because they will be entirely fabricated by people like Michelle of Humpty Doo. At this stage, on this Skype call, the group’s only task is to create and maintain these fake Facebook profiles. These need to look normal — with regular updates of, say, a good New Yorker cartoon or a gif of Will Ferrell dancing, along with vintage Polaroid pics or posts expressing sly life sentiments. (“Still a little pissed I can’t fly or set things on fire with my mind!”)

“Post often, post cat pictures, memes, favorite foods, recipes,” Gerbic urged through the crackle and pop, and to ensure they don’t get caught too easily, “Make sure the pictures aren’t too Google searchable!” The Facebook pages are meant to be catnip.

“We want the target to see dollar signs, not question marks,” said Mark Edward, a mentalist and magician who collaborates with Gerbic in organizing these operations.

When the Facebook pages have aged enough to look real and the target psychic is in a town where some of Gerbic’s crew lives, she will call upon others of her SWAT team to leave their screens, don undercover identities of these Facebook sock puppets and head out into the mean streets of the corporeal sphere. The sting intends to catch the hustlers working their tricks, but Gerbic’s strategy also includes luring these most susceptible of audiences back into the ways of logical thought. To do this, she sends four or five of her shills to a show under these sock-puppet names and has them record the psychic when he approaches and spews all the made-up stories of life and death from the fake Facebook pages.

Once the psychic has been stung, the team will write up an account and then post the evidence — video or sound — onto a website dedicated to a particular debunking mission, which Gerbic gives a memorable name. In future events, other skeptics can simply slip into performances and just leave cards with these odd operation names printed on them.

“That’s why I do my stings with names that are ridiculous: Operation Bumblebee, Operation Ice Cream Cone, Operation Pizza Roll,” she said. “They’re all easy to spell and easy to remember. So even if you throw the card away, you might remember ‘Operation Pizza Roll.’ And you’ll say, You know what, I’ve got a couple of minutes before the show starts; I’m going to see what this Operation Tater Tot is all about.” Then you’ll work your way to Gerbic’s write-up about the psychic you are about to see and, just maybe, find yourself in a thicket of contradictions so intense, you can escape only by thinking.

Busting psychics has a history almost as rich as the rise of modern psychic belief, somewhere around the mid-19th century. Of course, there has always been a general sense that there exists a supernatural gift for seeing into the future, the present (sometimes called “remote viewing”) or the past (that is, communicating with the dead). The hope that this power exists reaches back to some of the earliest civilizations — the court seers of the Egyptians, the Oracle of Delphi just north of Athens, the bone-reading shaman of ancient China. Among the more recent big shifts in how we conceive of supernatural communication occurred around the time of Charles Darwin, when there was an explosion of secular interest in the numinous, called spiritualism.

This new popular pursuit found an audience across all classes and denominations. While the poor sought out their corner soothsayer, the smart set was happy to ponder the works of a Russian mystic named Madame Blavatsky, whose “theosophies” were a kind of modern mash-up of religion, science and philosophy. In fact, a lot of this interest took the form of science — people trying to measure these various powers or to discuss the supernatural in sober, logical tomes. These were the days when you might read the other books written by Sherlock Holmes’s creator, Arthur Conan Doyle, a member of the London-based Society for Psychical Research who died insisting that he would rather be remembered for his paranormal works such as “The New Revelation” and “The Vital Message” than for his Sherlock Holmes detective stories.

And throughout this rise of interest, there was a parallel rise in debunkers. The poet Robert Browning once exposed the mid-19th century Scottish psychic, Daniel Home, who claimed to conjure the spirit of Browning’s infant son, who died young. Except Browning hadn’t lost a son. Worse, the poet lunged at the apparition to unmask it and found himself clutching Home’s bare foot. Helen Duncan was found to swallow a length of cheesecloth, which she could produce dramatically from her mouth as ectoplasm. During an early-20th century séance, Frederick Munnings deployed a long voice-altering trumpet across the room — a clever tactic undermined one night when someone accidentally switched on the light.

The idea of talking with the dead is one of those stubborn hopes that’s difficult for a culture to move beyond. Famous skeptics like Harry Houdini left precise instructions with his wife and friends as to just how he would reach out, if it were possible, after his death. Stanley Kubrick, in talking about his movie “The Shining” with Stephen King, confessed that he found optimism in stories about the supernatural. “If there are ghosts, that means we survived death,” he explained.

Gerbic got into the sting racket because of her mentor, James Randi, the famous skeptic who started his career as a magician, the Amazing Randi. After he began busting paranormal con artists as a hobby, Randi won a MacArthur grant that he leveraged into a variety of different venues, including annual ship cruises filled with skeptics, called the Amazing Adventure. On a 2009 voyage to Mexico, Gerbic met Edward, who was on board as the skeptics’ entertainment.

Edward himself is a mentalist and claims no powers other than to entertain. He once posed as an undercover clairvoyant to infiltrate the Psychic Friends Network, which became popular as late-night infomercials that offered psychic readings over the phone in the 1990s. For another Psychic Friends spinoff radio program, he climbed the heights of the organization and became the backup to the show’s Master Psychic. Edward wrote a book about his clandestine life as a medium, “Psychic Blues.”

After they became friends, Gerbic and Edward found themselves griping to each other that skeptics had become too much of a closed group, too often just patting each other on the back. Skeptics’ groups, Gerbic told me, “always seemed to be bogged down by bureaucracy and rules,” and she really wanted “to do something and stop talking about it.”

Then Edward happened upon a new way to lure people into the realm of reason. Instead of just busting psychics outright, he focused on helping the audience members discover the ruse. Edward was at a 2009 show featuring a giant of the business, Sylvia Browne, who was performing at the Gibson Amphitheater in Los Angeles, hosted by the TV celebrity Montel Williams. At the time, Browne was making a comeback from a few psychic catastrophes. Browne told Lynda McClelland’s daughters that their mother, who had disappeared, was alive and in Florida. Later, McClelland’s body was found near where she lived in Pennsylvania. Browne also predicted that an 11-year-old named Shawn Hornbeck in Missouri had been kidnapped by a brown-skinned man in dreadlocks and was dead. Then Hornbeck was found alive — kidnapped by a white guy with tedious hair.

During the Q. and A. session, Edward managed to get to the microphone. He told Browne he was possessed by spirits, fell into a trance and started to name them: “Lynda McClelland!” On YouTube, you can see Browne barrel onward, even as Edward pretends to collapse, and move to the next audience member with startling speed.

One day, at a skeptics’ meeting in 2011, Gerbic and some others realized that Sylvia Browne was just down the street. They decided to sabotage her show but with a slight twist. They couldn’t guarantee getting someone to a microphone; instead, they just handed out cards to people entering the show. The cards said nothing more than “Shawn Hornbeck” and “Lynda McClelland” — the idea being that for some audience members, a little curiosity and Google would handle the rest.

Gerbic told me that the group’s previous hot-read sting — Operation Pizza Roll — worked perfectly back in 2017. She and the other skeptics spent 10 days creating Facebook profiles in advance of Thomas John’s visit to southern Los Angeles. Gerbic used her Facebook sock puppets, “Susanna and Mark Wilson,” to register herself and her pal Edward.

John is a well-known figure on the psychic circuit. He names people’s pets and dead relatives with breathtaking first-attempt accuracy. He has a thriving practice on Madison Avenue, and on the West Coast, his press materials tout a host of Hollywood clients, including Sam Smith, Courteney Cox and Julianne Moore. His audiences admire him, but then they probably haven’t Googled past the first page of results to learn that before he popularized his gift for talking to the dead, he was Lady Vera Parker, a drag queen in Chicago who later got into some trouble when Thomas John Flanagan (his legal name) was charged with theft, fined and sentenced to probation — precisely what the specific charge was for, his lawyer explained in a statement, the psychic can no longer remember.

On the appointed night of the show, in came Susanna and Mark Wilson, dressed in fancy clothes and toting third-row V.I.P. tickets and unobtrusive recording equipment. Because Susanna’s Facebook page mentioned her losing her twin brother, Andrew, to pancreatic cancer, Gerbic arrived clutching a handful of tissues, a tactic she encourages because it sends the psychic the message that you will be an emotional and entertaining reading. Right away, Thomas John said he was tuning in to a twin brother who wanted to speak to his sister. Gerbic raised her hand.

“Somebody is making me aware of cancer?” John asked, and Gerbic choked up, yes, yes. John reeled her in: “I’m getting something right in here,” and pointed to his abdomen, “stomach or pancreas?” Gerbic acted emotional. And John went straight down the rabbit hole, all the while being careful not to bring the crowd down. He said of Gerbic’s fictional dead brother: “First off, he is making fun of you, teasing you for being here with me! He’s laughing about it!” And the audience laughed, too.

Over the course of the reading, John comfortably laid down the specifics of Susanna Wilson’s life — he named “Andy” and amazingly knew him to be her twin. He knew that she and her brother grew up in Michigan and that his girlfriend was Maria. He knew about Susanna’s father-in-law and how he died.

But about two-thirds of the way through John’s riffing, he seemed to sense something was fishy. All of which is, in fact, part of the experiment. Gerbic knows only some of the facts of her character’s life. Her thinking is that if John knows even more details than she does, then it’s absolute proof that he’s looked through the Facebook posts. Gerbic’s sting is placebo-controlled, double-blind. On the tape, it’s easy to catch the precise moment when John sensed that something was wrong. John was talking about the dead brother when he suddenly asked, “And ‘Buddy,’ who is that?”

Gerbic had no idea and improvised, “my father,” when in fact, Buddy was her fictional dead brother’s fictional dog.

John kept up the reading and then interrupted himself: “Oh, I understand — O.K., so I am being drawn over here,” and with that, he walked away.

Back home, Gerbic and Edward excitedly checked to make sure her hidden tape recorder captured the whole moment. Later, Gerbic explained: “One really odd thing happened to me a couple days after the event. I received a tweet from Thomas John to my Susan Gerbic account with only a heart.” How else could that have happened, Gerbic asked, other than that John was winking at her — going back to Susanna Wilson’s ticket purchase to discover it was paid for by Susan Gerbic.

When I reached Thomas John, he insisted he did not use Facebook. He explained away the incident without hesitation. “I do remember her coming to an event,” he said. “I recognized her because she was there with that other guy who wrote that book.” He went on to say that if there is tape of his giving them a reading, well: “I have my eyes closed for an hour and a half when I’m doing readings. If she spoke up during that period of time, I don’t remember that. It’s possible.” John said he didn’t remember sending Gerbic a tweet after the show, but added: “I tweet a lot of people. I don’t remember doing that, but it’s possible.”

Then John pivoted, arguing that the entire experiment wasn’t really scientific enough. “For Susan to come to a reading and get a two-minute reading and say, well, ‘I made a fake post about my dog, Buddy, and my father who died,’ it’s really not any sort of scientific testing of psychic powers.” He added, “First off, someone will have to be a scientist to do a scientific experiment, not someone who used to be a photographer at Sears.”

Since the sting, Thomas John used his prestige out West to launch “Seatbelt Psychic,” a show on Lifetime in which he “surprises unsuspecting ride-share passengers” when he “reveals he can communicate with the dead.” James Corden, the host of “The Late Late Show,” gushed that he is “obsessed with the show,” which resembles Jerry Seinfeld’s Netflix series “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee,” except instead of comedians drinking coffee, it’s folks talking to the dead.

By March of last year, the new fake Facebook pages were up and running, and they were fantastic — credible fictional characters built out of regular posts. Online, “Ed Caffry” was such an obvious good-time guy, a goofball who had just posted a picture of a bottle of red wine wearing a pair of sunglasses with the caption, “I made a wine cooler. ...” He lives in Vegas and suspects his apartment is haunted. He has also posted a few pictures of “ghost orbs.”

Follow his friends, and you find yourself in the company of zany “Zoe Bertino,” and she’s such a nut, too. She wears blue wigs, posts easy aphorisms about life and is excited to be visiting America right now from Australia. Anyone with a forensic eye for Facebook life wouldn’t be surprised if she and Ed Caffry hooked up on this trip.


I met Zoe and Ed on a cold winter morning in Cheltenham, Pa., at the home of Donna and Kenny Biddle. They were getting into character. Donna adjusted Zoe’s blue wig, and Kenny was bounding around Ed-style, popping off with big, goofball energy. Three other new friends were there, and they were also in their characters. The five of them were chattering nervously, excited to be heading out on a real mission.

The only remnant of Kenny Biddle on Ed Caffry that morning was an odd necklace, which upon closer inspection was a tiny replica of Thor’s hammer, Mjolnir. In passing, Biddle explained that one reason he signed on for this adventure is that once he was a full believer in the paranormal. He is a convert to skeptical thinking. In fact, he used to be a ghost hunter in Pennsylvania. In 2003, he started a group: PIRA — Paranormal Investigative Research Association.

When they went to catch a ghost, Biddle arrived with lots of camera equipment. He was really into it. He had protocols — double cameras so that he would not only shoot the haunted space but also shoot the camera shooting the space to prove that the shots weren’t rigged. He made blueprints of each house and wrote out lengthy plans to capture the spirits on camera. He loved the paperwork. “We had reports for everything,” Biddle said. “I was going all Sheldon Cooper, making a form for every damn thing possible.” (Sheldon Cooper is the hyper-retentive perfectionist on the TV comedy “The Big Bang Theory.”) “Oh, my God. I think the interview form that I had was 12 pages long.”

But then a funny thing happened. As he got better and better at the mechanical part of ghost hunting — the photography — he discovered that good photography was precisely what skeptics used to disprove the physical existence of ghosts. So Biddle started looking into their work. He picked up Skeptical Inquirer magazine. “I started reading more and more of that stuff,” Biddle said, “and saying, Wow, you know, this makes sense. So it was just a gradual shift from there over to the skeptic side. Now I’m learning how to test equipment better, learning how to properly investigate mysteries, looking at every detail, interviewing the witness and not leading them, stuff like that.”

These days, Biddle still goes to paranormal conferences and sometimes even hosts a skeptics’ table, trying to disprove the claims at every other booth in the show.

“Tell the Ginnie Wade story,” his wife, Donna, suggested. Ginnie Wade was a 20-year-old woman during the Battle of Gettysburg, and in 1863, she died by a stray bullet, the only civilian casualty during those three bloody days. A man visiting the battlefield had a picture that his daughter took and discovered a ghostly image in a window of a woman in period clothes. Certain that he had captured the ghost of Ginnie Wade, he submitted the picture to Biddle, who wasted no time in returning to Gettysburg, using the same camera and taking the same shot, revealing how “the old wavy glass created an image and made it look like the back of a woman dressed in an old Civil War period dress. And we were able to recreate it and show him.” Donna added, “Kenny just crushed his dream; he was literally in tears.”

“This is why I wear a Thor’s hammer,” Biddle said, smiling.

The Valley Forge Casino in King of Prussia, Pa., is one of those modern revenue-enhancement ecosystems whose carpets ease the crushing of your soul with faded earth colors. The wall décor is best described as bankrupt-dentist’s office. Down a football-field length of sterile corridors is a conference room with a poster outside of a beaming Matthew Fraser.

To open his show, Fraser deployed some self-deprecating jokes, salted with some spicy obscenities, to warm up the crowd. The audience was sizable and mostly women; the few disgruntled husbands in the crowd wore the faces of men who had been blackmailed. Zoe and Ed and the other Guerrillas sat near the front in hopes of being noticed. I sat alone, about four rows behind them.

Fraser walked down the aisle and straight to my row. Right off, he said he had a vision and asked the dozen or so of us to stand. I was momentarily terrified, not only because I had prepared nothing, but also because if he asked me why I was there, I would feel obligated to tell him I was there to observe a secret sting operation.

The crowd was older, and without much trouble, Fraser easily divined the very likely fact that someone’s mother on the row had passed. He quickly identified a woman near me and handed her a microphone. “Your mom is acknowledging that I have to speak to my daughter,” he said, and then let the woman know that Mom was O.K. in the afterlife. “Your mother says that she wants you to know that she loves and cares about you.”

It was a classic cold reading, all generalized notions searching for something slightly more specific to move to. Fraser often nodded his head as if to nudge her to go along. “Your mom tells me that she was angry before she left this world, and you don’t want to talk about that.” Fraser stepped back, held her gaze and encouraged her, “You understand that?” She agreed. As he teased the story along, Fraser might, oddly, crack a joke to ease the tension but then take the room right back to this quiet place. Fraser said, “I need to apologize to my daughter because every day she deals with the stress and the burdens.”

Suddenly, the real sorrow of this stranger’s loss was here, near me, on my row. And then the whole room felt it. “Your mom says I am taking responsibility for that.” I could barely look up. This little moment felt so intimate and private. Grief is one of those emotions that doesn’t happen publicly too often, and so when it does, the mood easily dominates the room. With each reading, Fraser was, in fact, summoning the dead because all these middle-aged people had lived lives. We all knew death, family death, deeply felt. One by one, everyone in the room was reliving some loss. Helplessly, I thought of my own father, who died when I was 11, and those old emotions, stored away but never far off, took hold of me as if I were graveside.

By the time Fraser inched his way to the other side of the auditorium, people were even more forthcoming. Fraser came to a middle-aged woman dressed in a colorful scenic sweater. Her burly husband with a snow white goatee and veteran’s cap was beside her as she revealed losing two of her sons, in tragic ways. She said she missed them every day.

The audience was with her; our grief held her. We were all wrapped in rich, old memories of aching pain. Maybe dead spirits aren’t real. But these emotions were. My exhausted father waking up early on his Saturday off to watch cartoons with his little kid. Decades disappeared. I squeezed back a little boy’s confused tears. “Sonny boy,” my mom said one morning, “I have something sad to tell you.” I so miss him.


Fraser consoled the mother with news. “Your son says he’s O.K.,” Fraser said, speaking in the voice of one of her deceased boys. The mother sobbed and sank into her husband’s big chest. “More important, they are together on the other side.” Fraser learned that Christmas was no longer celebrated at home, and Fraser crushed the room: “He says you have another son, who needs you?” The husband nodded; she nodded. “He says to me, just because we’ve passed, it doesn’t mean my mother stops her life.”

Even the most stoic of men were overwhelmed, heads turned away, into shirt sleeves. Fraser stepped toward the couple and took both of them in a long, sobbing group hug. Then he moved away.

There were a few more readings, each a little bit easier emotionally. Fraser was a brilliant performer, cooling off the room. With a couple of light jokes salted with naughty words, he bolted onto the stage, and then disappeared into the wings. Eventually, Gerbic’s Guerrillas will produce an account, and Operation Peach Pit will be online with the hope of reaching a future audience with logic. But there was no denying the real power of what we all felt in the room. “Reason,” wrote the philosopher David Hume almost 300 years ago, “is and ought only to be the slave of passions.”

The real world was out there, in fact, just down this hall, but it was hard for me to get there as the crowd inched along. Fraser appeared in the corridor at a table with stacks of his book, “The Secrets to Unlocking Your Psychic Ability.” On the cover was over smiling Tom Cruise bathed in heavenly light, clutching a gigantic key longer than his forearm. Out the corner of my eye, I caught a blue wig in the line of fans. Zoe couldn’t quite get out of character as Fraser signed one of his books for her: “Trust your own psychic voice.”

Jack Hitt is the creator and a host of the 2017 Peabody Award-winning podcast “Uncivil.” 

Monday, February 25, 2019

Islam after Salman Rushdie


Islam after Salman Rushdie

The Satanic Verses would not be written or published today. What’s changed since Salman Rushdie’s notorious novel?


Bruce Fudge AEON

is professor of Arabic at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. 

Nobody would have the balls today to write The Satanic Verses, let alone publish it,’ the writer Hanif Kureishi told a journalist in 2009. Salman Rushdie’s notorious novel, like Kureishi’s figure of speech, is indeed looking like a relic of a bygone time. When it was published 31 years ago, the global furore was unprecedented. There were protests, book-burnings and riots. Iran’s leader Ayatollah Khomeini called on Muslims to kill Rushdie, a bounty was placed on his head, and there were murders, attempted and successful, of supporters, publishers and translators. The author spent years in hiding. 

Three decades later, the novel remains in print, widely available, and the author walks about a largely free man. But if the skirmish over The Satanic Verses was won, a larger battle might have been lost. Who now would dare to write a provocative fiction exploring the origins of Islam? The social and political aspects of the Rushdie affair obscured one of the key ideas at stake: can someone from a Muslim background take material from the life of the prophet Muhammad to compose an innovative, irreverent and resolutely godless work of fiction? 

Subsequent experience suggests not. The cases of the caricatures in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005 and the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo at various times between 2006 and 2015 will make anyone, Muslim or not, think twice about representing the prophet Muhammad in anything but a conventionally reverent manner, for fear of giving offence or of grievous bodily harm, or both. The Danish and French cartoons, however, were treading on terrain already fertilised by The Satanic Verses. They were deliberately testing the limits of free speech and self-censorship. Other cases, such as Innocence of Muslims, a short film posted to YouTube in 2012, were more clearly anti-Muslim provocations where it is difficult to discern any genuine concern for free speech. The Rushdie affair was the first in a series of conflicts over the portrayal of the prophet Muhammad. In hindsight, though, it looks more like the end of an era than a beginning. 

The fact that The Satanic Verses is such a lengthy and challenging novel is the first hint that one should distinguish between the Rushdie affair and the book itself. People can routinely describe the novel as, to cite a couple of academics in the West today, a ‘portrayal of Islam as a deceitful, ignorant, and sexually deviant religion’, containing ‘abusive language and insults directed at the prophet Muhammad and his wives’. Such a reading stems from the affair, which has subsumed the novel itself. The social and political circumstances were outpacing literature, and those circumstances are even more pronounced today. The increasing prominence of radical Islam, or Islam as a political force, is obviously one factor. The other factor, especially in the West, is the increasing emphasis on culture and ethnicity, religion included, as a means of self-definition. Rushdie had intended, he said at the time, ‘to write about religion and revelation from the point of view of a secular person’, but the idea of what constituted ‘religion’ was itself changing. 

The Satanic Verses is a sprawling, surreal epic of immigrant experience, set in London and Bombay (as it was called at the time). It follows two Indian men, the only survivors of a flight blown up by Sikh terrorists over the English Channel, who miraculously survive the fall and land on the beach below. One of them, an actor famed for playing gods from the Hindu pantheon, finds a halo has appeared over his head. The other, who has lived in England for years trying to distance himself from his Indian roots, develops horns on his head, a devilish tail and appalling halitosis. 

Intertwined are three subplots in the form of dreams experienced by the increasingly unhinged Indian actor. Each of these subplots deals in some way with Islam, and each is based on recent events or historical accounts. The Imam is a Khomeini figure plotting and carrying out a revolution. Part IV, ‘Ayesha’, features a young girl who claims to be receiving divine messages instructing her and her followers to walk to Mecca through the Arabian Sea, claiming that the waters will part for them. The section that gets all the attention, though, is ‘Mahound’, a satirical rewriting of the career of Muhammad. The book’s title refers to an infamous story from the early days of Islam, and also to the strong possibility that the entire novel is narrated by the Devil. 

The Satanic Verses repeatedly shows us the point of view of a person asked to believe in something he doubts 

In his dreams, the actor, Gibreel Farishta (the angel Gabriel) finds himself the unwilling conduit of messages to a prophet named Mahound, in a surreal city obviously based on Mecca: 

Mahound’s eyes open wide, he’s seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that’s right, Gibreel remembers, me. He’s seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by. What, whom? Don’t know, can’t say. Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words. 

Being God’s postman is no fun, yaar. 

Butbutbut: God isn’t in this picture. 

God knows whose postman I’ve been. 

The themes of these subplots are, like those of the novel as a whole, ambiguous and impossible to summarise. One constant, however, is the question of belief, or more accurately, the shades of doubt between belief and disbelief. Rushdie’s is a modern, individualist perspective, and The Satanic Verses repeatedly shows us the point of view of a person asked to believe in something he doubts, like certain of Mahound’s associates and the husband of one of the most zealous devotees of Ayesha the seer. This is not a perspective with much precedent in Islamic literatures. 

For Rushdie, the essentials of religion are fairly simple. He is not concerned with scriptural hermeneutics or jurisprudential subtleties. Religion is not even a matter of ethics. It is a matter of whether you believe in God or not, and if you don’t, which he doesn’t, what to do about this fellow Muhammad? 

Studying history as an undergraduate at Cambridge, Rushdie was fascinated by how much information we have about the origins of Islam. Compared with any other prophet or founder of a religion, we know a good deal about the life of the Muslim prophet (what we don’t know is equally vast, and the tradition might not be quite as reliable as many suppose but, on the whole, the point stands). So how does one read the story of the messenger of God, when one doesn’t believe in God? This question was foremost on Rushdie’s mind. As he told a TV interviewer in 1989: 

When Muhammad returned to Mecca in power, he was very, very tolerant. And I think, if I remember correctly, only five or six people were executed after the retaking of Mecca. And of those five or six people, two were writers, and two were actresses who had performed in satirical texts. Now there you have an image that I thought was worth exploring: at the very beginning of Islam you find a conflict between the sacred text and the profane text, between revealed literature and imagined literature. For a writer, that conflict is fascinating and interesting to explore. So that’s what I was doing, exploring. 

Rushdie’s details are not entirely accurate, but the sources do record that Muhammad held a particular grudge against those who had satirised him, and requested or hinted at the need for their execution. The image is a powerful one, all the more so for a writer of fiction, and this opposition between prophetic word and poetic word would find its way into The Satanic Verses. 

It was not just a matter of the origins of Islam. Such images were made more powerful at the time by the unexpected return of religion. Up to the 1980s, it seemed that secularism was on the rise everywhere, and the Islamic world was no exception. But then things began to change. Islam and Islamic movements were suddenly more prominent. There were kidnappings and suicide attacks in Lebanon. Anwar Sadat, the president of Egypt, was assassinated by the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The mujahideen rose to prominence in Afghanistan. The Islamist regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq took power in Pakistan. And, above all, there was the Iranian Revolution. It might be difficult now to recall how the grim visage of Khomeini symbolised for many (and not just Westerners) a new and frankly frightening religious force in the world. Religion was supposed to be on the way out – but here it was. Rushdie shared this incomprehension. 

These gaps and contradictions in the Quran are the areas that Rushdie chose to investigate 

In exploring the life of Muhammad, Rushdie poked and prodded the Islamic tradition in its most sensitive regions. Early Islamic sources contain a number of elements that are at odds with the conventional, ‘orthodox’ or popular versions of Islamic origins. For example, there are a number of instances where Muhammad appears to be all too human in his apparent desires and actions, such as an occasional vindictiveness or his numerous marriages. Muslim tradition tends to downplay these elements or rationalise them as part of his larger, divinely inspired plan. Anti-Muslim polemicists, however, have long seized on such accounts as evidence of Muhammad’s malignity, and mention of human weakness or personal idiosyncrasies tends to be taken as a provocation. Rushdie’s satire is provocative, certainly, but it is not part of that tradition. 

Islam is premised on the authenticity and integrity of the Quran, but there are some indications in early Arabic accounts that the collection of the Holy Scripture was not as complete and accurate as convention would have us believe. It is important not to exaggerate these elements, though: Muslim scholars have been aware of them for centuries, and Islam has flourished quite well nonetheless. If the conventional narrative has a few holes, any skeptical alternatives have many more. Even so, these gaps and contradictions are present, and who is to say that one should not consider them and what they might mean? These are the areas that Rushdie chose to investigate. 

The Satanic Verses contains, for example, a heavily fictionalised story of Ibn Abi Sarh, who worked as Muhammad’s scribe, copying down the revelation as the messenger recited it. Several sources tell us that Ibn Abi Sarh, when taking dictation, continued to write after Muhammad had ceased to speak, completing phrases with words he thought appropriate. When his additions went unnoticed, he was shaken. How could these be the words of God? They were his own! He left and fled to the prophet’s enemies. When the Muslims had conquered Mecca and Islam was triumphant, Muhammad demanded that Ibn Abi Sarh, among other apostates, be killed. He was eventually persuaded to grant clemency to his former scribe, but later expressed his regret that his companions hadn’t simply cut off his head. 

In Rushdie’s novel, the Ibn Abi Sarh character has gone into hiding from the prophet whose verses he altered. ‘Why are you sure he will kill you?’ he is asked. ‘It’s his Word against mine,’ he answers. 

Even more sensitive is the story of the satanic verses. In the earliest days of Muhammad’s prophetic mission, he was despairing of winning any more converts to his cause. Opposition was fierce. His message of one unique god was not welcome in a community that had long worshipped a variety of deities. Then, he received a revelation that seemed to resolve his problem: in addition to the one god, Allah, one could pray to three other minor gods, all female. Some of his enemies prostrated themselves alongside Muhammad: it seemed as though a compromise had been reached between his strict monotheism and the multiple deities of the Meccans. 

There are different versions of what happened next. Either the angel Gabriel appeared and told Muhammad that Satan tampered with the words, or he realised himself that he had recited something not right, something that sacrificed his most fundamental principle. Subsequent divine revelation announced that, while Satan might interfere with a prophet’s recitation, God will intervene to remove the offending part. The ‘satanic’ words, those affirming the existence of the three female deities, were then excluded from the revelation, and strict monotheism was reconfirmed. The polytheists of Mecca resumed their hostility, but Muhammad had compromised nothing. 

Today, virtually all Muslims consider the episode of the satanic verses to be a fabrication. It is inconceivable, they say, that Satan’s words could have found their way into the revelation. It is inconceivable that the messenger of God, the prophet who serves as a guide for all believers, could have committed such an error. The story was surely a falsehood concocted by the enemies of Islam. In the 1960s, an Egyptian scholar went so far as to propose that all mention of the incident be excised from future editions of historical texts. 

But the problem is that many historical texts do contain the anecdote, in around 50 slightly varying versions. Moreover, as the book Before Orthodoxy: The Satanic Verses in Early Islam (2017) by Shahab Ahmed convincingly shows, the first generations of Muslims did not question the incident. Only gradually, with the development of certain doctrines regarding the sinlessness of prophets, did the story become impossible to accept. Even Ibn Taymiyyah, the 14th-century firebrand and intellectual forefather of Salafism, accepted the veracity of the satanic verses story. 

In his book, Ahmed proposed that the story served particular functions in different contexts for the very first generations of believers: it might have originated to explain certain obscure Quranic verses; it might have been an uplifting narrative of triumph over adversity, of succumbing to temptation at a moment of despair, and then returning to the straight path. In other words, it is possible for believers to find meaning in a non-orthodox interpretation of the anecdote. Likewise, it is possible for a nonbeliever such as Rushdie to find something valuable in the life of the prophet, even when God is out of the picture. The Muhammadan revelation becomes a matter of human history and behaviour, a story of belief and credulity, of power and knowledge, one that has echoes throughout human experience. 

None of this is to say that The Satanic Verses does not offend. It clearly does. For those who make it that far into the novel, the scenes in which the prostitutes adopt the names and personae of Mahound’s wives are guaranteed to send the faithful into fits. Neither the novel nor its author makes any suggestion that this is meant as a comment on the prophet’s wives, real or fictional, and to claim otherwise, as many have, is simply incorrect. At the same time, one can hardly claim surprise that people are offended. 

Anti-Muslim sentiment (and politics) has reached levels where any criticism of Islam is suspect 

One might argue that whatever his criticisms, Rushdie should have been more respectful. But this is a dangerous path, one that misjudges what is at stake. Is it not the case that many great works of Western literature, from François Rabelais to Voltaire, James Joyce to Philip Roth, offended a good number of religious groups and authorities? This was the argument of Sadik Jalal al-Azm, a Syrian philosophy professor who was arrested in 1970 on blasphemy charges stemming from his book Critique of Religious Thought(1969), in which he condemned religiosity in the Arab world, and blamed it for many social and political ills. He wrote various pieces in defence of The Satanic Verses and its author, including ‘The Importance of Being Earnest About Salman Rushdie’ (1989), an extended comparison with Rabelais and Joyce, noting the difference between the canonical status granted to Western authors who challenged religious authority or orthodoxy and the, at best tepid, support for Rushdie: 

Perhaps the deep-seated and silent assumption in the West remains that Muslims are simply not worthy of serious dissidents, do not deserve them, and are ultimately incapable of producing them; for, in the final analysis, it is the theocracy of the Ayatollahs that becomes them. No wonder, then, if a Muslim’s exercise in satirical courage and laughter should pass mostly unsung for what it is … Did not Rabelais, Voltaire and Joyce know what they were doing? Is not Rushdie breaking new ground in Muslim cultural and historical consciousness? If so, then, are not adverse reactions to be expected? Or are Muslim societies and cultures supposed to remain where they have always been? 

Some might protest at the assumption of Muslim backwardness in need of secularisation, but al-Azm argues that there is a long list of Muslim writers who have faced various trials for their expression of independent or secular thought. Rushdie, he says, is part of this lineage. It is certainly true that anti-Muslim sentiment (and politics) has reached levels where any criticism of Islam is suspect for its motives, but one wonders about the fate of this intellectual tradition of secular dissent. In the current climate, the fate of a highbrow novel might not be the most pressing issue, but it does seem that those who value literature should at least be aware of what is at stake. 

Should we, in any case, assume that everyone of Muslim background takes offence? No. In 1989, a Pakistani reader wrote to The Observer newspaper in London: 

Salman Rushdie speaks for me in The Satanic Verses, and mine is a voice that has not yet found expression in newspaper columns … Someone who does not live in an Islamic society cannot imagine the sanctions, both self-imposed and external, that militate against expressing religious disbelief … Then, along comes Rushdie and speaks for us. Tells the world that we exist – that we are not simply a fabrication of some Jewish conspiracy. 

Al-Azm, too, noted that the controversial sections of The Satanic Verses spoke to him personally, that he too had wondered what kind of a man was Muhammad: 

Was he a world-historic figure or an instrument of Divine Will and Plan? Was he a pious God-fearing figure of traditional legends or a shrewd and calculating long-distance trader and merchant? Was he a servant of the Spirit and its higher ideals (having read some Hegel) or a philanderer and womaniser? After some exposure to Freud I did ask myself questions about the psychoanalytic significance of his earlier marriage to a woman fit to be his mother and his later infatuation with girls fit to be his daughters. 

Rushdie was not the first person from a Muslim background to have doubts about religion. However, he will probably be the last for some time to express them so explicitly in literary form, for it is indeed unlikely that anyone would publish The Satanic Verses today. It’s not likely it would even be written today, and this is not solely due to sensitivities regarding Muhammad. The nascent political Islam of the 1980s is even more present, but vastly transformed. Three decades ago, it was symbolised by the disapproving gaze of Khomeini, satirised to great effect by Rushdie. But the Iranian leader’s face was replaced in the popular imagination by the oddly blank countenance of Usama bin Laden, who in turn has been displaced, more frighteningly, by legions of anonymous and brainwashed ISIS volunteers. 

The prevalence of Islamist movements throughout the world, whatever one thinks about them, was unimaginable when The Satanic Verses was written. A 21st-century novel that takes Islam as one of its subjects would treat matters differently. The questions of belief and history that Rushdie tackled in his book have not gone away, but they might seem less urgent. We are more concerned at present with what people do, rather than whether they believe in God and his prophet or not. It must seem clear to all but the most vulgar polemicists (and perhaps the most fanatical militants) that the essential tenets of Islam cannot explain everything we see today. 

Rushdie’s satirical look at religion comes across quite differently when Islam is conceived of as an identity 

For many of Rushdie’s time, place and class, religion was something to be avoided. It represented anti-intellectual backwardness and the cruel oppression of women, minorities and artists; it encouraged hypocrisy and frowned at laughter; it promulgated what an Arab literary critic called a ‘pre-Copernican’ worldview. Rushdie’s conception of what constitutes religion is perhaps not so distinct from 18th-century Enlightenment critique. 

However, the timing was not good. The assertion of an Islamic identity was on the rise among Muslim communities in the 1980s, in Britain and elsewhere. This self-conscious assertion of Islam as an integral or central element of one’s culture was relatively new, at least on a large scale, and it does not always mesh seamlessly with the conventional view of religion as a set of doctrines and rituals. Rushdie’s satirical look at religion comes across quite differently when Islam is conceived of as an identity. What began as a critique of ideas is taken as an insult to a group, and often a marginalised group, at that. 

The increasing prevalence of Islam as identity is hard to overstate: recall that Rushdie was well-known as a man of the antiracist, anticolonial Left. Most of his defenders at the time came from his fellow travellers on the Left. Today’s Leftists tend to a different stance on the issue of representing Muhammad (with an analogous reversal on the Right). 

Rushdie’s satire has nothing to do with the crude criticism of Islam that has become widespread and that Rushdie himself (somewhat understandably) has engaged in, which posits a fundamental incompatibility with modernity or the need for an Islamic ‘reformation’. It is instead the kind of critique that only a novel can provide. It points to the cracks and weaknesses in the certainties of the tradition; it tells us that commands and prohibitions can reveal more than their issuers intend, that Muhammad’s power and status might have changed his behaviour, that the Quran as we know it might not in fact be the direct word of God, that if the scripture says that the prophet’s wives should remain behind a curtain, some imaginations will run wild about what is going on in there – that to talk of belief implies the existence of doubt and nonbelief. It is these aspects of The Satanic Verses that have been eclipsed by the Rushdie affair and its aftermath, but it is these that will persist well after the current social and political landscape has changed.


Sunday, February 03, 2019

When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy


When the Suffrage Movement Sold Out to White Supremacy

African-American women were written out of the history of the woman suffrage movement. As the centennial of the 19th Amendment approaches, it’s time for a new look at the past.

Brent Staples NY Times


Americans are being forced to choose between a cherished lie and a disconcerting truth as they prepare to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment in 2020. The lie holds that the amendment ended a century-long struggle by guaranteeing women the right to vote. The truth is that it barred states from denying voting rights based on gender but “guaranteed” nothing. More than a dozen states had already granted millions of women voting rights before ratification, and millions of other women — particularly African-Americans in the Jim Crow South — remained shut out of the polls for decades afterward.

While middle-class white women celebrated with ticker tape parades, black women in the former Confederacy were being defrauded by voting registrars or were driven away from registration offices under threat of violence. When the black suffragist and civil rights leader Mary Church Terrell petitioned her white sisters for help, they responded that the disenfranchisement of black women was a race problem — not a gender problem — and beyond the movement’s writ. 


Mary Church TerrellIllustrations by Lauren Nassef

Mary Church TerrellIllustrations by Lauren Nassef


This counterfeit distinction was familiar to black suffragists, who had argued for more than 50 years that they could no more separate gender from race in themselves than shed their skins. The movement, however, had tended toward a definition of “women” that was implicitly limited to people of the gender who were white and middle class. Its most prominent advocates — Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony — drove home that notion by rendering black women nearly invisible in their hugely influential “History of Woman Suffrage.” As the push for white women’s rights neared its goal — a constitutional amendment — the movement hedged its bets by compromising with white supremacy.

Historians like Glenda Gilmore, Martha Jones, Nell Irvin Painter and Rosalyn Terborg-Penn have recently revised the whitewashed depiction of the women’s rights campaign by rescuing black suffragists from anonymity. This new, more inclusive portrait of the movement grows richer by the year and shows African-American women at the forefront of a struggle for universal rights that was far from over when white suffragists declared victory in 1920. 

‘We Are All Bound Up Together’

The official suffrage history reduces the poet and novelist Frances Ellen Watkins Harper to a bit player, even though she was central to the struggles for both African-American and women’s rights and delivered what has come to be recognized as a visionary speech on the relationship between the two at the founding meeting of theAmerican Equal Rights Association in 1866.

A formidable intellectual, Harper had forged her ideas about universal rights in the abolitionist movement, where she earned acclaim as a speaker sharing the platform with luminaries like Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and Lucretia Mott. 

Harper believed deeply in interracial collaboration but committed to it on the condition that white women treat black women as equals. As the historian Alison M. Parker has written, Harper vexed white women reformers by accusing them “of being directly complicit in the oppression of blacks,” and by demanding that they rid themselves of racism. 


Frances Ellen Watkins Harper

Frances Ellen Watkins Harper


A committed egalitarian, she balked when suffragists embraced a definition of “women” that included only the educated and the affluent. In a now famous speechgiven in New York, Harper told the audience that fates of black and white, rich and poor were “all bound up together.” She refused to decouple race from gender, arguing that the day-to-day racism she and other black women experienced was in fact a “women’s issue” that suffragists were obligated to confront. 

“You white women speak here of rights,” Harper said that day in 1866. “I speak of wrongs.” Reciting the litany of humiliations that black women had to endure on public conveyances — not because they were women but because they were black — she asked, “Are there no wrongs to be righted?”


Harper’s speech anticipated by more than a century the “intersectional” legal analysis of the critical race theorist Kimberlé Crenshaw, who showed how policies that treat race and gender as mutually exclusive deprive black women of redress in discrimination cases while also obscuring the fact that they struggle under the dual burdens of racism and sexism. 

“History of Woman Suffrage” draws heavily on the proceedings of the 1866 meeting but tellingly leaves out Harper’s momentous speech. The historian Nell Irvin Painter argues that her words were “too strong” for white suffrage leaders who saw her polished, self-assured style as antithetical to what they viewed as blackness. They preferred the uneducated version of black womanhood embodied by the formerly enslaved suffragist Sojourner Truth, who entertained her audiences as she imparted her ideas. 

Yet Harper’s poise and self-possession were the norm among the affluent freeborn black women who had time to engage with the suffrage movement. For example, the sisters Harriett Forten Purvis and Margaretta Forten — daughters of the wealthy Philadelphia sailmaker and abolitionist James Forten and his wife, Charlotte — were central players in the staging of the Fifth National Woman’s Rights Convention in their hometown in 1854. The Boston journalist Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, who played a leadership role in the Massachusetts suffrage movement in the late 1800s, was the wife of the pro-suffrage state legislator George L. Ruffin.

Another respected suffragist and abolitionist — but again, whose voice is missing from the suffragist narrative — is Sarah Parker Remond, who grew up in a prominent New England family. Remond, like Harper, was a member of the American Equal Rights Association. She was popular on the abolitionist speaking circuit and also toured the Northeast with her brother, Charles, in the late 1860s in support of women’s voting rights. 

Chroniclers of the suffrage struggle tended not to record their black peers. Fortunately, the 1853 lawsuit Remond filed against two men who ejected her from an opera in Boston for reasons of race provides a window into what she believed. The archivist Dorothy Porter Wesley writes in her study of the Remond family that the judge issued a forceful decision, “fully sustaining the equal rights of our Colored citizens.” We also know that Remond grew sufficiently tired of racism in the United States and fled to Europe.

While Remond stumped for suffrage in the North, Charlotte Rollin of Charleston, S.C., pursued the same mission in the Reconstruction-era South. The historian Rosalyn Terborg-Penn lists Rollin as the first South Carolinian to serve as a delegate at a national suffrage convention. In an 1870 speech — a rare occasion in which a black suffragist’s comments were set down — she argued for women’s rights under the universalist principle that denying rights to anyone endangers the rights of everyone: 

“We ask suffrage not as a favor, not as a privilege, but as a right based on the ground that we are human beings, and as such entitled to all human rights. While we concede that woman’s ennobling influence should be confined chiefly to home and society, we claim that public opinion has had a tendency to limit woman’s sphere to too small a circle, and until woman has the right of representation this will last and other rights will be held by an insecure tenure.”
White Suffragist Racism

Last year, Chicago renamed a prominent downtown street for the celebrated newspaper editor and anti-lynching campaigner Ida B. Wells, who also played a starring role in the earlier 20th-century suffrage movement. Less well known in the city today is the estimable Wells contemporary Fannie Barrier Williams, a member of the black elite who had a profound impact on Chicago during more than three decades of civic and political activism. 

Get our weekly newsletter and never miss an Op-Doc

Watch Oscar-nominated short documentaries from around the world made for you.


As her biographer, Wanda Hendricks, points out, Barrier Williams broadened her influence by crossing racial lines, becoming the first black woman admitted to the Chicago Women’s Club, one of the most powerful white women’s groups in the country. She led the charge to get black women politically engaged and worked tirelessly to open the business world to them as well. 

As Harper did, she dissented from the white suffrage movement’s gender-centric view of voting rights, arguing that “black women had unique needs that were defined as much by race as they were by gender and region,” making clear that she was less interested in a political candidate’s gender than in what he or she had to say about the plight of African-Americans. Beyond that, she bluntly reminded white women that racism in their ranks represented a prime obstacle for black women, writing “that the exclusion of colored women and girls from nearly all places of employment is due mostly to the meanness of American women.”

Mary Ann Shadd Cary


The New York Times last year published a belated obituary of Mary Ann Shadd Cary, another pathbreaking African-American suffragist, who died in 1893. Shadd Cary is thought to be the first black woman in North America to edit and publish a newspaper and was also one of the first African-American female lawyers in the United States. 

The newspaper — founded in Canada in 1853 and called The Provincial Freeman — reveled in the accomplishments of black women in particular and provided a rich forum for its readership to express itself in ways that would have been unthinkable a short time earlier. The Freeman set out what the historian Martha Jones describes as “an ambitious array of rights to which women were entitled.” These included the right to speak and write in public, to own and control property, to hold elective office and to enter the professions. 

Shadd Cary galvanized black women in Washington when she tried unsuccessfully to register to vote in 1871 — a year before Anthony was arrested in Rochester for voting illegally in the presidential election. 

Shadd Cary’s biographer, Jane Rhodes, writes that she was attracted to ideas put forward by Stanton and Anthony’s National Woman Suffrage Association and stayed close to the organization even though its leaders “spurned any association with the cause of black suffrage” and adopted the stance that “educated white women were better suited to vote than illiterate black males.” Shadd Cary was typical; black women often stayed with white organizations that were hostile to African-American interests to raise issues that would otherwise be ignored.
‘Turned Their Backs on Women of Color’ 

The ratification of the 19th Amendment set off celebratory parades all across the country. But confetti was still rustling in the streets when black women across the South learned that the segregationist electoral systems would override the promise of voting rights by obstructing their attempts to register. 


Some black women succeeded in adding their names to the rolls. But as the historian Liette Gidlow shows in her revelatory study of the period, the files of the Justice Department, the N.A.A.C.P. and African-American newspapers were soon bursting with letters, investigations and affidavits documenting the disenfranchisement of black women, especially in but not limited to former Confederate states.

In Virginia, Gidlow writes, a college-educated mother of four named Susie W. Fountain was required to take “a “literacy test” that consisted of a blank sheet of paper; the registrar subsequently determined that she had failed. She later told an N.A.A.C.P. investigator she was “too humiliated and angry to try again.” A Birmingham, Ala., teacher, Indiana Little, was arrested and sexually assaulted after leading a large crowd to the registrar’s office. As Little said in a sworn affidavit, she was “beat over the head unmercifully and … forced upon the officer’s demand to yield to him in an unbecoming manner.”

In what became known as “The Election Day Massacre,” a white mob burned to the ground a prosperous black community in the Central Florida town of Ocoee after African-Americans tried to vote.

By this time, white suffragists had declared the battle for women’s voting rights won and embarked on a campaign to prove the amendment successful. They had no interest in signing on to a cause that would undercut that story line. 

Coralie Franklin Cook


This betrayal was especially painful for the black suffragists like Coralie Franklin Cook, who had once said of her idol, Susan B. Anthony, who died 14 years before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, that “thousands of torches lighted by her hand will yet blaze the way to freedom for women.” By 1921, however, Cook lamented that, even though she had been “born a suffragist,” she had no choice but to retire from the field. The movement, she said, had “turned its back on women of color.” Organizations that are gearing up to commemorate next year’s centennial of the 19th Amendment are at risk of repeating that insult. 


Brent Staples joined the Times editorial board in 1990 after working as an editor of the Book Review and an assistant editor for metropolitan news.