Talk:Ain't I a Woman?

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LilyMR (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KyleCross19, Cplaag.

Ain't

Not that it is really important, but one should know that ain't was the accepted contraction of am not. Truth is not using the phrase ain't I with any affectation. -Acjelen 22:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The title of the speech is actually "Ar'n't I a Woman?" Also, Truth did not write nor did she give the speech. It was a fictional speech written by Francis Dana Gage who supposedly "recorded" it.

Do you have any source backing the claim that the speech was never made? I have never heard this before, and I was under the impression that it was recorded in newspapers at the time. IJB 22:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having not responded in so long. I believe that the book "Ar'n't I A Woman?: Female Slaves in the Plantation South" by Deborah Gray White (in the introduction or preface) claims that the speech was fictionalized. Aside from the info added by other users below, I believe (if I remember correctly), White claims that Truth was not even at the meeting. THX-1138 02:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC) THX-1138

She did make the speech, but Gage added some material. For instance, Truth never actually said "Ain't I a woman?", although that quote appears very frequently with her name. I don't have a specific source, but you will probably find this in history books. Anazerkon 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote is commonly attributed to Truth but it was invented and written by Gage in a dramaticized version of the Akron meeting. Gage was present at the meeting but did not accuratlely record the real speech given by Truth. Also the correct quote is "Ar'n't I a woman?", not "Ain't" as mentioned above. Read more here: http://www.nellpainter.com/publications/truth_art_chied.html or here: http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/sojournertruth/a/bio_truth_s_2.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.2.50 (talk) 18:51, April 24, 2007

Sources for the correct speech can be found here: Mabee, Carleton. Sojourner Truth: Slave, Prophet, Legend. New York: New York University Press: 1993. Pages 78-79. Painter, Nell Irvin. Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996. Pages 164-178. Both books rather conclusively demonstrate that Gage modified and dramaticized a speech Sojourner Truth gave in 1851 to make it into the "Ar'n't I a Woman?" speech so commonly misquoted in history books and all across the internet. The closest thing to the actual speech that we have can be found here. Both of the books I referenced above are cited as references on the Wikipedia Sojourner Truth page. Sandarmoir 19:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are saying that there is a correct speech. Truth's speech was not written down or recorded at the time and all accounts are recollections written down by different people at different times with different agendas. I have added the speech you refer to, but it is not necessarily any more correct then the speech recorded by Gage. - Epousesquecido 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for editing this page to reflect the Robinson speech as well. I say that the Robinson speech is probably more correct than the Gage version because Robinson published it only a month later, which means he reconstituted it from his notes much earlier than that. Gage wrote it down twelve years later, gave Truth a North Carolinian dialect (when her dialect was Low Dutch-inflected New York English) and wrote it to compete with Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Libyan Sibyl" work about Truth. Gage was using it to boost the Women's Movement. Robinson was simply reporting it. Compelling arguments by both Dr. Painter and Dr. Mabee indicate that everything Gage described regarding Truth's speech (the crowd being anti-Truth and so forth) was contrived and that Truth's speech was neither more nor less important than anyone else's. Neither did it mark a change in the women's rights movement. Please see Painter's book, chapters 14 and 18, and Mabee's book, chapter six (full citations in my previous comment) for more. Sandarmoir (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

From the South?

Isabella was from New York, not usually felt to be in the South.

And? What does this have to do with the article? Anazerkon 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some northern states did at one time have legal slavery but achieved emancipation peacefully prior to the Civil War. IIRC, Sojourner Truth was indeed from New York, which at one time was a slave state. Slavery was abolished there, but before that, she was sent to another slave state prior to gaining her freedom. I hope this clears things up? Afalbrig 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Gage's version of the speech shows Truth to be speaking in a crude North Carolinian dialect, not the Low-Dutch dialect she actually spoke in. It played off of American beliefs that all black people spoke like stereotypical southern blacks, which is one reason why Truth's birthplace is important when discussing the speech. Sandarmoir (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Race?

The article states: "In her speech, Truth argued that while American culture often placed white women upon a pedestal and gave them certain privileges (most notably that of not working), this attitude was not extended to black women." But I can't really find any particular textual evidence in either version of the speech that she was discussing any disparity between white and black women in the suffragist or feminist cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.178.126 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that passage is unsourced. I'll remove it. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for my attempt at reorganization (which I then undid)

Having a heading titled "The speech" with a description of versions of the speech found below a heading called "Background" seems to be putting a cart before a horse. Having a heading called "Different versions" as well as a heading titled "The speech" is untidy and affects readability and seems unencyclopedic. I think this article should be differently organized. It doesn't flow or describe the subject in an order that makes sense. Moving some information, such as that found under "The speech" seemed like a helpful choice... a number of editors have expressed displeasure in this editing style (moving large chunks of text without discussion of my plan on the talk page) which is probably why I decided to undo this edit. (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC))

Hey, Flagrant hysterical curious, thanks for engaging on the talk page. I actually think the article is organized pretty reasonably -- background is often given ahead of the details about the subject, sort of as an introduction for those who may not understand the context -- but I'm willing to listen. Since you really like working on huge sections at a time, one thing you could think about is placing a copy of the article into your sandbox, moving things around until you think you've got something better, and then coming back here to ask people to take a look. That would allow you to play around with the organization to your heart's content, but wouldn't be disruptive. --valereee (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)