One of the women mentioned in this book is the Polish scientist Maria Skłodowska (labeled Marie Curie), a winner of two Nobel Prizes and all around female pioneer scientist.

So far so good…

What is interesting to find out, however, is what the Skłodowska blurb tells us about Poland. Fascinatingly, Chelsea (assuming these books are not ghost written) states the following:

“Growing up in Poland, MARIE CURIE knew that because she was a girl, she would have to leave her country to go to college. She persisted, moving to France to pursue her dream of being a scientist.”

The upshot for a little girl reading this is obvious : Poland bad – reactionary. France good – progressive. So persist and move to France.

That this is highly misleading should be obvious to anyone familiar with Polish history and Maria Skłodowska’s biography but for most people it will likely play into their prejudices so let’s clarify some things:

Curie left Poland where there was no Poland. She was born in Warsaw which was under Russian administration. Any complaints about the educational policies at that time should’ve been lodged with the Russian tsarist authorities (for example, all teaching was done in Russian at the time).
Curie left Poland because her family had been persecuted by the Russian authorities for their pro-Polish independence sympathies.
Curie left Poland because her love affair with a Pole did not work out (his parents objected to her lack of material means).
Curie left Poland because her sister had already left Poland and was enrolled at Sorbonne and then invited Curie to France.
The Sorbonne at the time was, I believe, the only university in Europe that admitted women (Poland, Russia, Germany, Britain, the rest of France, etc, included).
The Sorbonne was, at the time, a highly reputable university at which anyone with an academic inclination – male or female – would’ve been more than happy to study at.
The Sorbonne’s “openness” notwithstanding, Curie is on record remarking how few women were enrolled there.
Curie did not “know” she would have to move “because she was a girl in Poland”. Instead, Curie left Poland because her potential marriage fell apart (vide above), she was low on cash (vide above), she had nothing to lose (vide above), her sister was already in France (vide above) and she was given a chance to attend one of the better universities in the world (vide above). She was, in short, an economic/family migrant & maybe even a political migrant but her move can in no way be characterized as that of fleeing any local repressive Polish regime (though tsarist Russian, perhaps) for the enlightened salons of France.

Except, of course, in the mind of an apparently biased child of privilege.

What we have here is an attempt to stretch facts not only to create a “feminist” narrative but also to piss on another country (something Clinton’s dad had also done recently while getting a nice speaking commission which raises questions about the parental quality of Chelsea’s upbringing).

Of course, the book is not meant to expose all the complexities of a given situation but rather to introduce enterprising women to the younger audience. Yet, why not write something simple but not so clearly biased and historically inaccurate?

Say this:

“MARIE CURIE grew up in Poland studying chemistry. At the time few universities admitted women. She persisted in order to pursue her dream of being a scientist, and eventually, with the help of her sister, Marie found her way to the university at Sorbonne.”

Instead, we get a blurb that says mountains about Clinton and how she was raised. I also wonder what else is in these books that can likewise be described as fanciful nonsense.

Copyright ©2019 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

February 9, 2019That this is highly misleading should be obvious to anyone familiar with Polish history and Maria Skłodowska’s biography but for most people it will likely play into their prejudices so let’s clarify some things:

Curie left Poland where there was no Poland. She was born in Warsaw which was under Russian administration. Any complaints about the educational policies at that time should’ve been lodged with the Russian tsarist authorities (for example, all teaching was done in Russian at the time).
Curie left Poland because her family had been persecuted by the Russian authorities for their pro-Polish independence sympathies.
Curie left Poland because her love affair with a Pole did not work out (his parents objected to her lack of material means).
Curie left Poland because her sister had already left Poland and was enrolled at Sorbonne and then invited Curie to France.
The Sorbonne at the time was, I believe, the only university in Europe that admitted women (Poland, Russia, Germany, Britain, the rest of France, etc, included).
The Sorbonne was, at the time, a highly reputable university at which anyone with an academic inclination – male or female – would’ve been more than happy to study at.
The Sorbonne’s “openness” notwithstanding, Curie is on record remarking how few women were enrolled there.
Curie did not “know” she would have to move “because she was a girl in Poland”. Instead, Curie left Poland because her potential marriage fell apart (vide above), she was low on cash (vide above), she had nothing to lose (vide above), her sister was already in France (vide above) and she was given a chance to attend one of the better universities in the world (vide above). She was, in short, an economic/family migrant & maybe even a political migrant but her move can in no way be characterized as that of fleeing any local repressive Polish regime (though tsarist Russian, perhaps) for the enlightened salons of France.

Except, of course, in the mind of an apparently biased child of privilege.

What we have here is an attempt to stretch facts not only to create a “feminist” narrative but also to piss on another country (something Clinton’s dad had also done recently while getting a nice speaking commission which raises questions about the parental quality of Chelsea’s upbringing).

Of course, the book is not meant to expose all the complexities of a given situation but rather to introduce enterprising women to the younger audience. Yet, why not write something simple but not so clearly biased and historically inaccurate?

Say this:

“MARIE CURIE grew up in Poland studying chemistry. At the time few universities admitted women. She persisted in order to pursue her dream of being a scientist, and eventually, with the help of her sister, Marie found her way to the university at Sorbonne.”

Instead, we get a blurb that says mountains about Clinton and how she was raised. I also wonder what else is in these books that can likewise be described as fanciful nonsense.

Copyright ©2019 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

February 9, 2019
Post navigation← Cretan Suavs
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

RECENT POSTS
Persistent Biases
Cretan Suavs
On Agricultural Text(st)iles
Calisia
Verschiebung
CATEGORIES
Baltics
Byzantine Slavs
Croats
Customs
Czechs
East Slavs
Historiographics
Kaszubs

https://www.poradnikzdrowie.pl/zdrowie/uklad-pokarmowy/os-mozgowo-jelitowa-dlaczego-jelita-to-drugi-mozg-aa-5DQJ-R1sL-1sVn.html
http://alergia-astma-immunologia.pl/2016_21_3/aai_vol_21_3_art_1276_Gregorczyk-Maslanka_Kurzawa.pdf
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_bakteryjna_jelita
https://www.spidersweb.pl/2018/05/jelita-drugi-mozg.html
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%C5%9B_jelitowo-m%C3%B3zgowa
https://youtu.be/8p46NFNujlk