Talk:Daughters of the American Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Note to the editors

Note to the editor: The Daughters of the American Revolution extends membership with discrimination today as it did in the past. The group denies membership to those who have been adopted into qualifying families, even in the case when the child is legally said to be born to said qualifying family. In other words, children raised in the system of an old fashioned, closed adoption are barred and denied not only membership, but also the benefits of said membership, despite the fact that in the eyes of the law of the United States of America said individuals are legally recognized as the blood offspring of qualifying families.

Although certainly a rare circumstance, it goes against what the Wikipedia I love so much has published. As an avid user, I believe it to be wrong for you to publish that the D.A.R. extends membership to all of those female descendants of veterans of the American Revolution.

In my case for example, my birth certificate states that I was born to the son of a D.A.R. member. This is a legal birth certificate issued in the state of IL in the USA. It is my only birth certificate. However, as I was adopted by the son of the D.A.R. member at birth, I am not allowed the benefits of membership realized by many of my female relatives.

This is important because the organization, in receipt of federal funding as well as the promotion of American values, acts against the very legal jurisprudence that this country deems vital to American society, that is the protection of the family unit, in this case in the form of the closed system of adoption. In a closed adoption, the value of the blood line is second to the needs of the state. That is, that the family unit, as a building block of society, is more important than the D.A.R.'s geneaological snobbery.

This is the law. Therfore, it is against the legal policy of the United States of America for the D.A.R. to discriminate against me. You see I am not an illegitimate member of a family of descendants of American Revolutionary War veterans--I am legitimate in said family. I deserve to be recognized in this way and it is illegal to do anything but.

This information is not very important. However, it does indeed point out that it is factually incorrect to state that D.A.R. offers membership in these ways. This practice continues the historical pejorative spririt of the D.A.R. More importantly, it bastardizes children already disadvantaged, and this is wrong.

I ask the Wikipedia to edit the D.A.R. entry and reflect their continued practice of discrimination.


Thank you for your consideration,

Colleen M. Boyle c-boyle3@northwestern.edu


Is there a source for this information? Does it appear on their website? Thanks, -Willmcw 06:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
My grandma was refused admission because she couldn't provide enough proof.
-- Al™ 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As a SAR member, I'd like to point out that the SAR has the same restrictions. Both organizations are based on blood lines. Even illigitimate "bastard" children can become members, as long as they can prove the blood line. Adoptions which are out of the bloodline are letitimately excluded. It should also be pointed out that these are private organizations. To join the SAR, an existing member must vouch for the applicants "good character", and the applicant must also state that he believes in a Creator. I understand Ms. Boyle's frustration, but maybe she will feel a little better to know that the "benefits" of membership, as far as I can tell, are more about bragging rights than anything of substantial value. Perhaps it is different with the DAR, as they seem to be more well known, and have more policital "clout". Crockspot 15:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Eligibility criteria for DAR membership and information on how to join is on the DAR web site which is linked in the main article. Adopted children are welcome to become members, but they must join through a line from one of their biological parents. An applicant has to prove descent for each generation, starting with the applicant and going back to the patriot generation, just as one does for other lineage societies. VolunteerMom 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about content

The content of this article starts off nicely but then devolves into a overly-detailed account of a specific incident. Can someone more knowledgeable about the organization add something about what it does? The discrimination part, while important, is probably too long.

As for Ms. Boyle's request: is she unaware that she can--and should--edit it herself? (forgot to sign in: 03 January 2006)

By specific incident, do you mean the Marian Anderson matter? It is quite famous, so deserves special attention. The material from Ms. Boyle has been edited into the article. -Will Beback 01:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the part about it being ironic that Eleanor Roosevelt didn't protest barring from a high school. This clearly sounds like synthesis to me. If there is a reliable secondary source making this "ironic" observation, then by all means cite it and revert. I have also found some good sources, including Roosevelt's letter and the DAR response letter at the NARA website, and some information at the MET website. I have to absorb it, and will probably rewrite the Marian Anderson section very soon. - Crockspot 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Curious

Why do the edits by 24.54.33.170 not show up in the history? I believe this editor is a DAR member who is attempting to add email conctact info to the article. That may or may not be appropriate, but just curious why their edits have been zapped. Crockspot 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Marian Anderson section

I completely rewrote the Marian Anderson section. I know it is a little longer than some would like, but I believe it is a notable part of DAR's history that should be mentioned, and if it is to be mentioned at all, it should accurately and fairly summarize the controversy. It is very well sourced, and I thought I was able to present the material neutrally, in fairness to all parties, and also show that the DAR's relationship with Anderson was very positive after the controversy. Crockspot 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anachronism

"In 1932 the DAR adopted a rule excluding African-American artists from the stage at Constitution Hall."

I very seriously doubt that, in 1932, the DAR, or any other organization, was writing rules that excluded "African-Americans" from their locales. The term "African-American" is a relatively recent invention. Chances are they used negro or colored. The author of the article should find out and use the appropriate term. Better yet, a quote, with citation, to the particular DAR rule, would be very helpful. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable DAR members

There is an exhibit at the DAR Americana Collection in Washington DC called "Dazzling Daughters", which has material on famous DAR members up to 2004. I added the five names mentioned in the exhibit description on the DAR website, using the exhibit as a source in the cite tag. If anyone is in the DC area and can go see the exhibit and get a list of more names, they can be added using the same cite tag as the others. If the cite tags confuse you, just post the names in this section, and mention that you got them from the exhibit, and I will add them for you. - Crockspot 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Mayo (actress)

Excellent book on DAR which contains a good history section (up to 1986) is Washington Historic Landmarks: Pillars of Patriotism by Mollie Sommerville, Washington, D.C.: National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, 1985. ISBN: 0-96-2528-7-8 It details the many, many contributions that the National Society has made to the our country. VolunteerMom 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Roosevelt "irony"

In response to the repeated inclusion of a statement about it being ironic that Eleanor Roosevelt did not protest the barring of Anderson from a white school under federal jurisdiction, I included information about the school, the board, and their federal jurisdiction in the article. This allows the reader to explore the issue of politics playing a part in the incident themselves. To say that it is ironic that she didn't protest is conclusionary and original research, unless a reliable secondary source making these observations can be found and cited. The statement has since been reinserted, but I reverted it, and will continue to do so. Barring further sourcing, I think how it is worded now is as far as we can go on that issue. Also remember, this article is about the DAR, not Anderson or Roosevelt. Crockspot 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response on Roosevelt "irony"

As you state, nobody disputes the fact that the white public high school (which was under the control of a Democractic president and Congress at the time) also barred Anderson. Barring counterevidence, this same can be said for the statement that neither Eleanor Roosevelt nor her husband ever uttered or wrote a single word of protest about the high school ban. Criticism of the selective nature of this protest is not twenty-first century revisionism. In 1951, in the Saturday Evening Post, black author, Zora Neale Hurston, was sharply critical of ER. She pointed out that the Roosevelts had no legal power to reverse the Constitution Hall ban, because it was private property. By contrast, at least Franklin had at least some legal (certainly moral!) power to reverse the school ban, had he chosen to do anything (which he did not).

Could politics, as Hurston wondered, have had at least something to do with the selective nature of ER's protest? We will never know but no objective historian would entirely dismiss it out of hand. Allan Keiler in Marian Anderson: A Singer's Journey (New York: Scribner, 2000), makes the following statement: "Mrs. Roosevelt understood well that the target of any action on her part and must be the be the DAR, and not the Washington School Board, a local issue local issue that could not possible resonate on a national scale."

Why then is the word irony misplaced? It is an entirely reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts which are not dispute. Furthermore, whether or not this was her intention, ER's protest entirely took the school board off the hook, politically speaking and thus helped FDR's 1940 campaign appeals to blacks. There is no getting away from its selective nature, however.

Actually, there is a good case for using a much stronger word to describe the one-sided nature of the protest: hypocritical.....but, then again, let's not go overboard. Unfortunately, however, your reverts and long and completely uncritical account of ER's protest goes to the other extreme and results in hagiography, not history.

In any case, you are right that this is an article about the Daughters....but since there is a long selection of Eleanor at least some balance is in order.

You reverts do not make clear that that the Board was not then governed by home rule but was entirely under the jurisdiction of a Democratic Congress/President. For this reason, I indicated this. Because, as you said, this is about the Daughters, I did not restore the old language about irony. Even so, you, or someone else, should add more nuance to the current completely uncritical and one-sided account of ER's resignation. 70.219.111.62 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have some additional sources that are not cited in the article. I have my hands a little full elsewhere, or I would pursue them myself, but I invite you to do so. Crockspot 00:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for what? What facts do you dispute? The Keiller book, which quoted above, has a good presentation of these facts though it does not use the precise word "irony." Since you yourself note the school board's action, what are you asking me to do?

70.219.111.62 00:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything. I'm just saying that you have some reliable sources I was not previously aware of that actually did point out/criticize ER for not protesting the school banning. They can be used to source an appropriately worded statement about that in the article. If reliable sources have criticized this controversy as a political maneuver, I am all for including it in the article. I just don't have the time for several days to do it myself. Crockspot 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to further clarify, if the DAR's reputation was a victim of a political maneuver, then it is entirely relevant to include evidence of that from reliable sources. The sources you have mentioned above were not cited in the article when I rewrote that part, and I assumed it was simple original research. But it appears that such discussions were made at the time, so with the proper sourcing, it can more or less go back in, maybe not using the word "irony", but still... Do you get my drift? Crockspot 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"Irony" is a value judgement that we should not make as encyclopedia editors. Let's just note the facts and let readers find the irony. -Will Beback 01:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But if reliable sources have reported criticism of ER or the FDR administration over this, then it is appropriate to include. When I made my edits, I was not aware of any RS criticisms, so I confined the discussion. But it appears that there was indeed criticism. Crockspot 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to "Roosevelt Irony"

Many people today, particularly those who do not study history, are surprised to learn that racial segregation in public facilities was once the law of the land in many parts of the United States, and the practice was not limited to the South. It was not just Nazi skinheads who advocated racial segregation back then. It was widely accepted by the population. Indeed, in a line of cases beginning with Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1896, followed by five other cases in a 50-year period, the Supreme Court of the United States repeatedly held that racial segregation in public facilities did not violate the Constitution of the United States.

To suggest that Franklin Roosevelt had the power to reverse segregation at the high school betrays a lack of knowledge of our legal system. FDR was not a dictator, and he could not make law unilaterally. At that time, segregation was law in the District of Columbia, and there could not be any change in the law unless the Congress, which has exclusive jurisdiction over legislation in the District, agreed. Given the composition of Congress at the time, and the mores of society in 1938, that was simply not possible. In fact, it would have caused huge unpopularity for FDR for him even to suggest such a thing. If Mrs. Roosevelt wished to resign from DAR because of its segregation policy, she could do so, and she did. John Paul Parks (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When was it integrated?

This article is missing a very important piece of information. In what year and under what circumstances was the DAR racially integrated?--Pharos 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I searched their website but couldn't find any date for the change. -Will Beback · † · 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All-female?

Is this an all-female organization? It should be in the introduction.ssepp(talk) 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does the DAR do?

I came to this article looking for an answer to that question. I now know that I need to be X,Y, and Z to be accepted. But I know nothing about what they do, except try to keep Black women out. I feel integral (i.e. necessary) information has been completely left out. White Lightning 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence summarizes their activities nicely:
  • DAR chapters are involved in raising funds for local scholarships and educational awards, preserving historical properties and artifacts and promoting patriotism within their communities.
If you'd like to add more then that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess my question is: how do they promote patriotism, how do they raise funds, etc? It's a decent sized article, but most of it is spent discussing side (albeit still important) issues about the organization. White Lightning 05:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Two points. First, this is Wikipedia. That means do-it-yourself. Have you read their website? Have you visited the library? If you think the article needs more material, you're most likely the one to add it. Second, the DAR is a ladies society. At the risk of overgeneralizing, they behave in certain ways comon to ladies. They have committees. They raise funds through parties and bequests. They hold essay contests. They preserve old houses. Dames or daughters; they're all ladies under the skin. To be specific, this article would benefit by having a list of landmarks and houses the DAR maintains, and perhaps a summary description of their scholarships, and essay contests. I believe some actions are at the state chapter level, but the national website covers enough to appear comprehensive. Thanks for helping out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wargs.com

I have a couple of issues with the use of wargs.com as a source for DAR members. One, it doesn't seem particularly reliable. It is self-published material, but he does cite sources, so I don't doubt that it's accurate information. The larger problem is that it doesn't source DAR membership at all. It just shows that they are eligible to be members. I'm going to remove the citations, but I don't see harm in leaving the names. - Crockspot 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)