The statement was the following, and it was directed at another person criticizing the suffragette's disregard for the safety of both horse and rider:
"It's amusing, yet simultaneously irritating, to watch an amateur discuss a historical event. Lesson 1: Never judge a person from the early 20th century through the luxury of your 21st century lens. Their thoughts and considerations were likely without the benefit of modern institutionalized educational concepts that are tossed around in this conversation like Davison's body under that horse. By the way, over 8 million horses and donkeys perished in Europe between 1914 and 1917 during WWI, and you benefit greatly from an imperialistic structure reinforced through that, and subsequent MAN-made wars. A lot of comparing apples-to-tubas here...animals such as horses, in 1919, were viewed largely a utilitarian beasts of burden. Hell, humans were sub-divided into evolutionary 'categories' to justify racial and sexual exploitation under patriarchal, socioeconomic structures and institutions. So to answer the question, was the 'collateral' damage justified? 17 million people died in a five-year span before that race in the hallowed-name of 'nationalism.' 10 million soldiers, and 7 million civilians. That's a fuck-load of "collateral" damage.Now, Mr. Horse Fan, with your late 20th, early 21st century informed 'notions' of animal rights (which didn't exist then), Davison's actions, did accelerate the primacy of the suffrage debate in Britain, and did influence their subsequent political enfranchisement several years later. So millions of women worldwide did benefit from that act. Is universal, and complete suffrage a reality? No, not yet, but by using your logic 'rochatter,' since it's not 'complete' it doesn't exist? Women don't vote? Women don't hold political office, own companies, don't make contributions across the board regarding education, medicine, and industry? And, incidentally, thousands of race horses are slaughtered across the globe yearly because of race-related injury, or because they simply "are of no value" to their owners. they don't ask to participate in any of this...and this industry still exists with a supposedly 'informed' public. How do you justify that with your ill-conceived, half-baked, uninformed theory of this event? Incidentally, here it is, 102 years later, and we're discussing (albeit to a lesser extent here) the issue of universal suffrage, so, it is, in effect, STILL functional activism! Pretty amazing...you kind of made my point for me. As for the jockey, they make an informed choice to benefit from dangerous exploitation, so I guess the chips DO fall where they may...".
I'm by no means an expert on the 19th or 20th centuries, but I get the impression that the person's views are shaped by his very strong opinions. What's your take?
Sadly I cannot answer this in lots of depth as I am about to leave for some Sushi (yum)- and it would be antisocial to continue this comment in public.
I will leave aside the tone of the argument which I find a little.... obtuse - though earlier on in life I certainly fell into the trap of listing long words between commas to give the illusion of academic rigour! I am not entirely sure what the point of this argument is but would like to point out two problems with its premise.
(1) Davidson was not throwing herself under a horse in an act of political martyrdom - The consensus today is that she intended to put a 'Votes for Women' flag on the horse as it went down the home straight and misjudged the speed. This is in part from interviews after the fact, a flag on her person, her being seen practicing a similar stunt at home previously with a (slower) horse and the fact she bought a return train ticket. He death was then spun to martyrdom by the suffragettes afterwards.
(2) Her actions in anyway helped women's rights Without going into detail her actions, like much of the suffragettes' did much to harm the cause, or at least not advance it. Her action was viewed differently down the battle lines of franchise reform, but the average man on the street was unimpressed if a little sad for Davidson's death. She was seen as foolhardy and irresponsible. Even the more politically successful suffragist movement added muted condemnation to the action as harming the cause. There is no evidence that she advanced the cause. Women got the right to vote at the end of WW1 as a political ploy. It was untenable to argue against universal male suffrage post-WW1 as the average man fought for his country. This would have been a huge boon for Labour and the Liberals and a massive harm to the Conservatives as poorer voters flooded constituencies. Therefore the subsequent compromise over the Representation of the People Act 1918 included women over 30 who were married to Local Gov Register, property owner or graduate - i.e. Rich wives - i.e. reliably Tory supporting wives.
As for the rest of it - it quickly descends into politicking which is a little beneath this subreddit. Also the argument, by my estimation, has all the hallmarks of an internet forum answer, strong in long words and aggression, light in rigorous foundation or oratory. I would agree your reading that these are 'strong opinions' is correct and doubt how much pointing the historical accuracy of various points would do in this internet-street brawl.