Augusta National Meets “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight”

You might have heard that a bastion of male only membership has decided to let two women join.  Augusta National Golf Club recently asked Condoleezza Rice and business woman Darla Moore to join.  There’s been a lot of comment on whether they were pressured to do so. 

Back in 1990, Shoal Creek Country Club in Alabama, and in fact all clubs, were told if they did not allow blacks or women to become members, they would not be hosting a PGA tournament.  Some said they would rather discriminate, thank you.  Augusta National must have had a hot meeting back then, because they decided to open their doors to blacks.  Forget women though, that was simply too much.  Former Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm said, “Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black.”

Many say that August National is a private club and ought to be allowed to openly and smugly discriminate where it pleases.  That they should not be forced to accept anyone.  In 2002, Martha Burk challenged then Chairman Hootie Johnson to admit women.  Hootie was faced with losing television sponsors for two years, but he would not take women even with though it was financially in his best interest to do so.  Never mind that it was the right thing to do.  He famously said, “"that timetable will be ours and not at the point of a bayonet."  Wow.  Your ego astounds.

So it wasn’t a financial decision to admit women.  One can only wonder why they bowed to pressure now.  What was it that changed their minds, and how do we go about using those reasons to further supporting girls in the future, or any disenfranchised populations?

Why, in 1842, when the borders of Maine and New Brunswick were disputed, did the US and Britain choose not to go to war once more?  Why did American Daniel Webster and Englishman Alexander Baring, the Baron of Ashburton, decide to sit down in some room together and cohesively draw borders, thus avoiding war and countless lives?  Imagine what horrors and grief they saved.  It was the first time diplomacy had been used to settle disputes among the two countries.  What precipitated it? 

In 1844, candidate for the Presidency James Polk, known for his expansionist views, ran on the platform of fighting with Britain for control of Oregon Territory.  His slogan “Fifty Four Forty or Fight” is well known.  Well, he won the presidency.  But he didn’t fight for the fifty-fourth line of latitude.  How come?  He obviously had the support of America.  He could have had a meaty chunk of present day British Columbia.  Vancouver, BC would have been American.  No, instead a committee decided that the 49^th line of parallel would be the border and thus it stands to this day, the longest international border shared by two countries.  Why didn’t they fight?  How can we use those reasons to settle disputes today between fractions?  Was it economic?  As we can see from the Augusta National, economic reasons can be trumped by ego.  Few like being forced into compliance. 

So what finally happened behind those closed doors at Augusta National that made them open up and let down their barriers?  What do you think?  Can we use it to solve the great divide currently at play between Republicans and Democrats?  Can we use it to settle disputes in the Middle East too?