Talk:Eliza Hall Nutt Parsley

Neutrality
The UDC have been deeply involved in the promotion of the racist and pseudo-historical Lost Cause ideology. Serious historians call that ideology a "mythology" or just "lies" (Ty Seidule, certainly no leftist radical, in his book "Robert E. Lee and Me"). They were not "documenting" history, but actively and consciously falsifying it. Read e.g. David W. Blight's Race and Reunion for how they exerted control over Southern textbooks. I don't know anything about how much Parsley was personally involved in these activities, or whether she personally made racist comments or defended lynchings or segregation. But given her role in the UDC, these things absolutely need to be discussed in the article. NCPedia doesn't discuss these things (and I doubt it is a good source), nor does the UDC website (which, BTW, is no WP:RS). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this up. I would argue that I've kept the article neutral, as I state Parsley glorified the Confederacy and promoted the Lost Cause Narrative as a president of the NC Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I don't believe any of the information I've provided when writing and contributing to this article uplifts or promotes the Confederacy or the UDC. You're correct that the UDC (and similar organizations like the Ladies' Memorial Association, which Parsley was also active in) are racist institutions that promote Confederate mythology, uphold white supremacist ideologies, and systematically work to altar documented history and oppress people of color in the American south. However, none of the sources I've found specifically state that Parsley was a known white supremacist or outward racist. Of course, we can assume these things, and in all likelihood it is very probable, but that is not information we can add to a biography without it being specifically stated in the sources, correct? As you stated above, you are not aware of how much Parsley was "personally involved in these activities", so we cannot assume. I would argue that, therefore, the article is neutral. Being a resident of North Carolina myself, I am well aware of the work the UDC did and continues to do to promote white supremacy. On that note, I would be interested in collaborating with you and other users to rethink how these women (members of clubs like the UDC) are written about. How do we explain the role they play in white women's racism in the American south? I've been torn about this subject before on other articles I've worked on. For example, North Carolinian First Ladies Fay Webb-Gardner and Margaret Gardner Hoey were both active members of the UDC and it is clearly documented that their husbands, who served as Governors of North Carolina, were active in promoting racism and running a government that worked to oppress black people. Yet I have found no sources that specifically state the first ladies' roles, while it is likely they played a major influence into the culture and views of upper-class white women in North Carolina at that time. Similarly, we do not categorize American enslavers and planters as racist, unless they specifically expressed such ideologies, but it is clear that they contributed to, participated in, and benefited from (or even depended on) the institution of slavery. On the flipside, some members of the UDC were outwardly racist and vocally promoted segregation and other Jim Crow Laws, such as Florence Sillers Ogden. Moving forward, how do we write about these women? Part of the reason I've worked on these articles, aside from documenting North Carolinian history, is because I believe it is important to share the role white women play in upholding racism.. but I need a collaborative effort in how we, as Wikipedia editors, approach this. Any ideas? Also, do you know of any other editors who would be interested in discussing this, or if there is already a discussion about similar topics elsewhere? Thanks! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. North Carolina has a special meaning to me because in a way Harriet and John S. Jacobs were the people who recruited me for WP. I see that there is no serious disagreement between us and that you are certainly as much (or more) aware of the problems as I am. Still, I have a slightly different view on the neutrality question (regarding the article, not regarding your work as an editor) which I hope to be able to elaborate on soon. For now, I just add "pseudo-historical" to "Lost Cause", following the example of United Daughters of the Confederacy where it has been discussed thoroughly. It goes without saying that you are free to revert / discuss. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)