Talk:Mary Ellen Pleasant

Untitled

I dont know where to begin with this one. First of all, the bias is quite blatant. For example, what scholarly reference states that Mary Ellen Pleasant is smarter than the press that demonised her? I have little doubt that the pro-white right wing media shunned her at the time. This is a valid point to make. There are also a number of controversial aspects to her life, such as contradicting accounts of her activities at certain times. Also useful and interesting to state in the article. To state that she is 'considered by some to be be the "mother of the civil rights struggle in California"' is also acceptable.

The tone and content of this article is better.[1] I propose it is the first point of call to improve the article.--ChrisJMoor 18:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for comments

Hi Chris,

I am struggling to see your remarks as helpful to the writer(s) of this article. First, I wish you had described the bias you detected in the article.

If you know something about MEP, it would be helpful to be specific in your comments in this discussion section: for instance, of the, “contradictions in accounts of her activities at certain times”. What period did you have in mind? And what source convinced you? THAT would be helpful.

Also, I find the remark, “I have little doubt that the pro-white right wing media shunned her at the time” confusing. What in the world do you mean by pro-white, right wing? Think about the press back then: it(owned by white males) most certainly did not shun her. The major SF newpapers had negative articles about her starting in the 1880’s.

If you know of other credible sources than the ones in the article, than please add them to the resource section; I, for one, would gladly read them.

I read the article .[1] you recommend. It was not helpful, either. It gives no sources and reports several things as facts that neither Bibbs nor Hudson was able to corroborate on the basis of their primary source research- such as Philadelphia as MEP’s place of birth. Even Holdredge doubted that. The wiki article reports the scholarship and opinions of recognized authorities on Mary Ellen Pleasant. Neither you, nor your reference, does.

She is already recognized as the "Mother of Civil Rights in California", "by some"- That is such a minor caveat unless you say who would oppose that recognition? You? If so, why? I never heard of anyone else opposing that title.

I couldn’t find any comment in the article about stating that Mary Ellen Pleasant "is smarter than the press". If such a comment was ever in there, it wasn’t mine and someone took it out. I never saw it. However, on the basis of your requiring "scholarly references" for that remark, I find it inconsistent that you extol an article with no references.(click on "[1]" above). ???

My references are clear: Bibbs, Hudson, Holdredge, in that order, and Holdredge is a distant 3rd. (You will never find a more biased account than Helen Holdredge’s- between her racism and her uncritical use of Teresa Bell’s diaries, which, by the way, other scholars can’t access.) Quetlin 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Friends, I cut some of the opinion and conjecture, but i will return to fix this page for its lack of detail.

Hank Chapot 68.164.171.135 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Hello.... I am currently reading the Ballantine paperback edition of the Holdredge book. It appears to have been edited pretty well & has a bibliography & acknowledgments section in the back that perhaps didn't exist in the earlier Hardback publication. It does mention the previous publication (Of '53) in the frontispiece but seems remarkably evenhanded for a book written first in '53 considering the subject matter & the times. Since its tone is rather admiring of MEP's achievements, is it possible that the original text was heavily revised for the paperback re-issue? Also I have to say, Holdredges book is a great read, I can hardly put it down. I wish I could make a Miniseries about this lady, very remarkable life. Just sayin' .

71.6.81.62 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)--mbd--71.6.81.62 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this story is not made into a drama until the facts are ascertained. To continue to give credence to anything printed in the newspaper because it is more interesting, is so unfair to her memory. In fact, those unproven newspaper accusations have kept her from becoming an UGGR heroine to American children, which she justly deserves. Quetlin (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Quetlin

Notice Pleasant's first husband was cited as being named "White" in the first mention of the article and "Smith" thereafter. "Smith" is correct.

A Review of this article

@ Hank Chabot. A bibliography is not the same as having citations in the text, and documents to back the claims.

Holdredge(HH) was a dishonest scholar. For instance, she interviewed Charlotte Dennis Downs(CDD) in the 1950's while researching her book. She claimed that CDDowns had the original of of a memoir Pleasant had dictated to her during the time MEP had worked at the home of Thomas Bell, 1880-1900, but unfortunately after HH read it the first time, it was lost, so she and 80 something CDDowns recreated it as best they could. It was this recreated account that said that Pleasant was born in GA, a slave, daughter of a Virginia Governor. The known fact is that her second husband, JJPleasant, was born at Goochland, the plantation of one of the governors of Virginia's son, and he was the grandson of the gov. That is JJ's story and it is documented. It is a confabulation that MEP was also born under the same circumstances only her mother was sent to GA while she was pregnant. (Ask yourself: Why is so much detail known about the plantation where she was conceived and nothing of the plantation she was born on, or even, her mother's name?) The reason is the story was a confabulation of an old woman trying to help the yellow journalist who was writing a book on MEP. Or, since CDD died before publication, HH just made it up and attributed it to her with a story of a purloined memoir. (WHY would Charlotte have the copy in the first place? that does not make sense as she was never the owner of said memoir.) HH admits she lost the manuscript and rewrote it, a huge no-no in historical circles. She was not a historian, but a reporter without even a BA degree. You need look no further to discredit this entire account, but there are plenty of other chances to discredit it as well.

Mary Ellen Pleasant herself, claimed in 1900 to a friendly reporter, that she was born free, in Philadelphia, and got to Nantucket at about six years old. she claimed she had no memories before Nantucket in that article. Why not take it from her own mouth? She was never a slave and had no memories before Nantucket.

JJ was believed to be related to members of the Haitian revolution and was distantly related to Marie La Veau's husband, but there is no evidence they ever worked in New Orleans. They worked from New England to Canada where they knew people. MEP and JJ both claim they came out to CA in 1849. They also habitually did their traveling in Captain Gardner's boat as Gardner was the guardian of MEP's inheritance from her first husband -and his second wife Phebe was MEP's "sister" being raised together and they were very close until the Gardners were lost at sea. MEP was raised by respectable Quakers who kept their hands in her financial life until they died off.

MEP was indeed an interesting person, but she was not a Voodoo priestess- that is a religion and you don't just become a priestess without years of apprenticeship. mention Although MEP was not a Quaker, she wore Quaker-like dress; plain grays, blacks and always wore her famous Quaker-style poke bonnet. She kept up her Quaker friends until she outlived them. Everything I here is found in the HH book itself. Quetlin (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)QuetlinQuetlin (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)