Aunt Liddy

 

Lydia Whaley - a story about an Appalachian woman.

Lydia Kear Whaley (1840 –1926) was an American basket weaver. While her primary income was farming, the Civil War widow also worked as a healer, midwife, teacher and undertaker. 

Whaley née Kear was born on May 24, 1840, in Sevier County, Tennessee. In 1860, she married John Whaley, with whom she had three children, two survived infancies. John Whaley died in 1864, while fighting for the Union army in the American Civil War. Whaley supported her family by farming

She was a talented basket weaver and the namesake of the Aunt Lydia basket sold in Gatlinburg TN.

Learn more through the video.

Many of my Rogers ancestors also lived in Sevier County TN at the time she did - so I'm always interested in learning how they lived. I had a few ancestors who were farmers, and others lived in the town of Sevierville. Then some of them moved to Texas, where a few generations later, I was born.

-----------------

Sharing with Sepia Saturday

The Ukraine

Recent past... 

From FaceBook post 11.3.25 by Volodymyr Vlad Kunko

I want to remember this and keep this photo here.

-------------------

March 2022 Kharkiv, Ukraine

This is not 1941 – it’s March 2022, Kharkiv. I turned a color photo into black and white.

This photo could be called “February–March 2022: The Railway Stations of Ukraine.”

My colleague, along with her daughter and little granddaughter, took a train like this one after spending several days at the Kyiv railway station.

Everything here is told from her words, exactly as she described it.

… Evacuation trains from Kyiv departed overcrowded, tense, and silent.

Confused, frightened children, nervous animals, tired and exhausted people. Some were lucky to find a seat, others simply collapsed onto the floor in the aisles and vestibules. Few belongings – yet they took up all the space that remained.

As the train pulled away from the station, the lights inside almost immediately went out. From near the doors, someone quietly passed along instructions: no phones, no bright lights, no internet connection, and God forbid – no geolocation. Everyone obediently dimmed their screens.

Darkness. Silence. The train crept carefully through equally dark fields and villages. Sometimes it paused, sometimes it jolted forward.

The children began to fuss – cartoons, bathroom, candy … There was nowhere to walk, and reaching the toilet was nearly impossible. But everyone understood, tucking in their legs, trying to make room. Parents did their best to calm the little ones, but as soon as one end of the car grew quiet, the other side woke up again.

An hour passed. Then another. By the normal schedule, they should already have been near Vinnytsia. They were told they wouldn’t reach Vinnytsia for at least two more hours – and there might not even be a stop. Some tried to protest, but they were quickly hushed. The children fell asleep. It became hot and stuffy. Boring. Frightening. They wanted to drink, but remembered – there would be no easy trips to the toilet.

Lights appeared ahead – Vinnytsia. The train sped through without stopping. The next possible stop: Khmelnytskyi. No one knew when they would get there.

Time dragged slowly. The children woke, and the cycle began again.

More lights ahead. The train slowed, the cabin lights flickered on. Everyone squinted, pulled out their phones, tried to check what was happening.

They arrived at a station. A voice announced a 5-minute stop. Some people frantically grabbed their things, their children, their cats – pushing toward the exit. They jumped onto the platform, but the car didn’t get any emptier.

Suddenly, a huge checkered market bag was thrown into the vestibule, then another two, and finally two women dragged in a fourth.

People began to grumble – “Where are you putting all that? There’s no room as it is!”

Someone replied, “Maybe there’s an animal inside, don’t start with them now.”

The women paid no attention. With quick, practiced motions, they opened the bags and began tossing small packages into the hands of those nearby.

“Quickly, pass them down! Three minutes left!”

People obediently passed them along. One bag empty, then another, and another.

Those still half-asleep tried to understand what was being handed to them.

One of the women shouted into the car:

— “Are there small children here?”

— “Yes!”

— “How many?”

— “About twenty.”

She opened the last bag and shook out more packages.

– “Pass them to the mothers!”

And through the car it rippled like a wave: “Pass them to the mothers, pass them to the mothers …”

The train jerked forward. One woman quickly gathered the empty bags, the other tossed the remaining packages onto the floor, and both jumped back out onto the platform.

“Liuda, water!”

Two crates of water were thrown into the vestibule just as the train started moving.

When people came to their senses, they began to open the packages they had been handed.

Each one contained three oatmeal cookies, a small cheese sandwich, a sandwich with butter and sausage, an apple, two chocolate candies, and a few “rachky” (caramel sweets).

The packages meant “for the mothers” contained a couple of diapers and three packs of baby food.

The lights went out again. Silence – only the rustle of candy wrappers and whispers asking for water.

Someone said the next stop would be Ternopil – but maybe there wouldn’t be a stop at all.

The dark train crept on through the dark fields and villages.

— Anastasia Haridzhuk

------------------------

Sharing with Sepia Saturday

-----------------------

Two years later, Christmas 2025

“This year,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said, “many Ukrainians are not at home — and some no longer have a home. But Russia cannot bomb or occupy what matters most: our Ukrainian heart, our faith in one another, and our unity.”

Zelensky contrasted Christmas music with the sounds of drones and missiles — the “noise of evil” that authoritarian power brings when it tries to crush a democratic nation by force.

On Christmas Eve, Russia again launched mass attacks — waves of Shahed drones and missiles. Zelensky framed the assault as the work of a regime with “nothing in common with Christianity — or anything human.”

2025

---------------------

Now, February 2026, a Norwegian member of the Nobel Committee has brought Zelensky's name into consideration for the Peace Prize.

----------------

By Ukrainian artists, Anya Stasenko and Slava Leontiev

Subjects of the movie, Porcelain War. It shows actual videos of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Please understand the importance of The Ukraine to all of Europe.

Maybe the Angry Women - 12

It was 1963.

New York City.

A twenty-eight-year-old freelance journalist was trying to get a serious assignment. She wanted to write about politics. She wanted to write about the growing civil rights movement.

But the male editors at the major magazines just laughed at her. They told her she was too pretty to be a serious reporter. They handed her assignments about nylon stockings, dating tips, and how to cook for a husband.

She realized that the media establishment was never going to give her a seat at the table. So, she decided to blow up the table.

She shoved her feet into three-inch stiletto heels. She strapped herself into a suffocatingly tight satin bodice. She pinned a fluffy white tail to her back and put on a pair of fake ears.

Her name was Gloria Steinem.

She went undercover as a "Bunny" at Hugh Hefner's wildly popular Playboy Club in Manhattan.

The media had spent years selling the Playboy Club as the ultimate symbol of glamorous, liberated, modern sexuality. Gloria didn't buy it. She suspected it was just the same old exploitation wrapped in a shiny new bow.

She was right.

She spent weeks working inside the club, taking meticulous notes. She documented the grueling physical demands, the rampant, normalized sexual harassment from customers, and the mathematically rigged wage system that kept the women broke and dependent on the club.

She published her two-part exposé, "A Bunny's Tale." It was a sensation. It completely shattered the glamorous facade of Hefner's empire.

But exposing the Playboy Club wasn't her endgame. It was just her opening act.

Gloria realized that as long as she was writing for magazines owned and edited by men, she would always be playing by their rules. The stories that actually mattered to women domestic violence, workplace discrimination, the fight for reproductive rights were considered "unprintable" by the mainstream press.

So, in 1971, she joined forces with a group of fierce, radical women to do something unprecedented.

They launched their own magazine.

They called it Ms. The title itself was a rebellion. At the time, women were defined entirely by their marital status Miss if you were single, Mrs. if you belonged to a man. Ms. was a declaration of independence.

The male publishing executives predicted the magazine would be a catastrophic failure. They gave it a month.

The preview issue sold out of its 300,000-copy run in just eight days.

Ms. magazine gave an entire generation of women the vocabulary to articulate their oppression. It became the beating heart of the second-wave feminist movement.

Gloria became the most famous feminist in the world. With her signature aviator glasses and streaked hair, she weaponized the very same conventional attractiveness that the media had tried to use to dismiss her. She forced the television cameras to pay attention, and when they rolled, she hit them with razor-sharp, unapologetic political demands.

She spent decades traveling the globe, organizing strikes, marching for the Equal Rights Amendment, and building a movement that spanned class and racial lines.

She is now in her nineties, and she has never stopped fighting.

As she famously warned: "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off."

She taught us that if the establishment refuses to let you tell your story, you don't lower your voice. You build your own printing press.

She was the brilliant political journalist who went undercover in a bunny suit to expose an exploitative empire, and then forged a publishing revolution that fundamentally changed what it meant to be a woman in America."

SOURCE: Giggle Grid FB page

---------------------

"As a woman I am extremely aware that the reason I have my rights is because a woman somewhere got up, got MOUTHY, organised, raged, made herself INCREDIBLY inconvenient until things changed for the better for all of us. Which is precisely why I see women who uphold the patriarchy as traitors to all women. It's wild how some women are so quick to benefit from the sacrifices of others, yet they won't lift a finger to challenge the system.

These women are complicit in their own oppression, and it's heartbreaking. They're perpetuating the same toxic ideologies that have held us back for centuries. Newsflash: if you're not actively working to dismantle the patriarchy, you're contributing to it.

We need to call out these women, not celebrate them. We need to recognize the harm they're causing and encourage them to do better. The women who fought for our rights didn't do it so we could be silent accomplices to the system.

How do you think we can hold women accountable for upholding the patriarchy?

SOURCE: FB page Real Point

---------------------

Portland, Oregon! Showing up for multiracial democracy! For Renee Good and the people of Minneapolis! Out against the nightmare of violent authoritarian rule.

History of the Ukrainian condition as of 2025

 Heather Cox Richardson is a history professor.

Here's what she wrote in 2025.

Let's look at the actual facts of history...

"The principle of national sovereignty is being tested in Ukraine. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine held about a third of the USSR’s nuclear weapons but gave them up in exchange for payments and security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom that they would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty within its existing borders. But Ukraine sits between Russia and Europe, and as Ukraine increasingly showed an inclination to turn toward Europe rather than Russia, Russian leader Putin worked to put his own puppets at the head of the Ukrainian government with the expectation that they would keep Ukraine, with its vast resources, tethered to Russia.

In 2004 it appeared that Russian-backed politician Viktor Yanukovych had won the presidency of Ukraine, but the election was so full of fraud, including the poisoning of a key rival who wanted to break ties with Russia and align Ukraine with Europe, that the U.S. government and other international observers did not recognize the election results. The Ukrainian government voided the election and called for a do-over.

To rehabilitate his image, Yanukovych turned to American political consultant Paul Manafort, who was already working for Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska. With Manafort’s help, Yanukovych won the presidency in 2010 and began to turn Ukraine toward Russia. When Yanukovych suddenly reversed Ukraine’s course toward cooperation with the European Union and instead took a $3 billion loan from Russia, Ukrainian students protested. On February 18, 2014, after months of popular protests, Ukrainians ousted Yanukovych from power in the Maidan Revolution, also known as the Revolution of Dignity, and he fled to Russia.

Shortly after Yanukovych’s ouster, Russia invaded Ukraine’s Crimea and annexed it. The invasion prompted the United States and the European Union to impose economic sanctions on Russia and on specific Russian businesses and oligarchs, prohibiting them from doing business in U.S. territories. E.U. sanctions froze assets, banned goods from Crimea, and banned travel of certain Russians to Europe.

Yanukovych’s fall had left Manafort both without a patron and with about $17 million worth of debt to Deripaska. Back in the U.S., in 2016, television personality Donald Trump was running for the presidency, but his campaign was foundering. Manafort stepped in to help. He didn’t take a salary but reached out to Deripaska through one of his Ukrainian business partners, Konstantin Kilimnik, immediately after landing the job, asking him, “How do we use to get whole? Has OVD [Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska] operation seen?”

Journalist Jim Rutenberg established that in 2016, Russian operatives presented Manafort a plan “for the creation of an autonomous republic in Ukraine’s east, giving Putin effective control of the country’s industrial heartland.” In exchange for weakening NATO and U.S. support for Ukraine, looking the other way as Russia took eastern Ukraine, and removing U.S. sanctions from Russian entities, Russian operatives were willing to help Trump win the White House. The Republican-dominated Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 established that Manafort’s Ukrainian business partner Kilimnik, whom it described as a “Russian intelligence officer,” acted as a liaison between Manafort and Deripaska while Manafort ran Trump’s campaign.

Government officials knew that something was happening between the Trump campaign and Russia. By the end of July 2016, FBI director James Comey opened a counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. After Trump won, the FBI caught Trump national security advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn assuring Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak that the new administration would change U.S. policy toward Russia. Shortly after Trump took office, Flynn had to resign, and Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn. When Comey refused, Trump fired him. The next day, he told a Russian delegation he was hosting in the Oval Office: “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job…. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.”

Trump swung U.S. policy toward Russia, but that swing hit him. In 2019, with the help of ally Rudy Giuliani, Trump planned to invite Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Petro Poroshenko, to the White House to boost his chances of reelection. In exchange, Poroshenko would announce that he was investigating Hunter Biden for his work with Ukrainian energy company Burisma, thus weakening Trump’s chief rival, Democrat Joe Biden, in the 2020 presidential election.

But then, that April, voters in Ukraine elected Volodymyr Zelensky rather than Poroshenko. Trump withheld money Congress had appropriated for Ukraine’s defense against Russia and suggested he would release it only after Zelensky announced an investigation into Hunter Biden. That July 2019 phone call launched Trump’s first impeachment, which, after the Senate acquitted him in February 2020, launched in turn his revenge tour and then the Big Lie that he had won the 2020 election. The dramatic break from the democratic traditions of the United States when Trump and his cronies tried to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election was in keeping with his increasing drift toward the political tactics of Russia.

When Biden took office, he and Secretary of State Antony Blinken worked feverishly to strengthen NATO and other U.S. alliances and partnerships. In February 2022, Putin launched another invasion of Ukraine, attempting a lightning strike to take the rich regions of the country for which his people had negotiated with Manafort in 2016. But rather than a quick victory, Putin found himself bogged down. Zelensky refused to leave the country and instead backed resistance, telling the Americans who offered to evacuate him, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.” With the support of Biden and Blinken, NATO allies and other partners stood behind Ukraine to stop Putin from dismantling the postwar rules-based international order and spreading war further into Europe.

When he left office just a month ago, Biden said he was leaving the Trump administration with a “strong hand to play” in foreign policy, leaving it “an America with more friends and stronger alliances, whose adversaries are weaker and under pressure,” than when he took office.

Now, on the anniversary of the day the Ukrainian people ousted Victor Yanukovych in 2014—Putin is famous for launching attacks on anniversaries—the United States has turned its back on Ukraine and 80 years of peacetime alliances in favor of support for Vladimir Putin’s Russia. “We now have an alliance between a Russian president who wants to destroy Europe and an American president who also wants to destroy Europe,” a European diplomat said. “The transatlantic alliance is over.”

This shift appears to reflect the interests of Trump, rather than the American people. Trump’s vice president during his first term, Mike Pence, posted: “Mr. President, Ukraine did not ‘start’ this war. Russia launched an unprovoked and brutal invasion claiming hundreds of thousands of lives. The Road to Peace must be built on the Truth.” Senate Armed Services Committee chair Roger Wicker (R-MS) said, “Putin is a war criminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed." Courtney Kube and Carol E. Lee of NBC News reported that intelligence officials and congressional officials told them that Putin feels “empowered” by Trump’s recent support and is not interested in negotiations; he is interested in controlling Ukraine.

A Quinnipiac poll released today shows that only 9% of Americans think we should trust Putin; 81% say we shouldn’t. For his part, Putin complained today that Trump was not moving fast enough against Europe and Ukraine.

In The Bulwark, Mark Hertling, who served as the Commanding General of the United States Army Europe, commanded the 1st Armored Division in Germany, and the Multinational Division-North in Iraq, underlined the dramatic shift in American alignment. In an article titled “We’re Negotiating with War Criminals,” he listed the crimes: nearly 20,000 Ukrainian children kidnapped and taken to Russia; the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and energy facilities; the execution of prisoners of war; torture of detainees; sexual violence against Ukrainian civilians and detainees; starvation; forcing Ukrainians to join pro-Russian militias.

“And we are negotiating with them,” Hertling wrote. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo points out that the talks appear to be focused on new concessions for American companies in the Russian oil industry, including a deal for American companies to participate in Russian oil exploration in the Arctic.

For years, Putin has apparently believed that driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe would make NATO collapse and permit Russian expansion. But it’s not clear that’s the only possible outcome. Ukraine’s Zelensky and the Ukrainians are not participating in the destruction of either their country or European alliances, of course. And European leaders are coming together to strengthen European defenses. Emergency meetings with 18 European countries and Canada have netted a promise to stand by Ukraine and protect Europe. “Russia poses an existential threat to Europeans,” President Emmanuel Macron of France said today. Also today, rather than dropping sanctions against Russia, European Union ambassadors approved new ones.

For his part, Trump appears to be leaning into his alliance with dictators. This afternoon, he posted on social media a statement about how he had killed New York City’s congestion pricing and “saved” Manhattan, adding “LONG LIVE THE KING!” White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich reposted the statement with an image of Trump in the costume of an ancient king, with a crown and an ermine robe. Later, the White House itself shared an image that imitated a Time magazine cover with the word “Trump” in place of “Time,” a picture of Trump with a crown, and the words “LONG LIVE THE KING.”

The British tabloid The Daily Star interprets the changes in American politics differently. Its cover tomorrow features Vladimir Putin walking “PUTIN’S POODLE”: the president of the United States.

From Letters From an American, Feb. 20, 2025

July 2025, Phoeniz AZ

Mary Leakey

February 6th is the birthday of British paleoanthropologist Mary Douglas Leakey, born Mary Douglas Nicol in London (1913). Her father was an artist, and she spent her childhood traveling with her parents as he searched for new landscapes to paint. Nicol also took on his daughter’s education — reading, math, and natural science — and encouraged her interest in archaeology. Mary demonstrated a precocious gift for drawing, even at a very young age. Rather than following her father’s career path, however, she used her talent to break into the field of archaeology — literally. She was hired as an illustrator on a dig site in England when she was 17.

Her drawing skills eventually led to a job illustrating a book called Adam’s Ancestors (1934). The book’s author was an archaeologist and anthropologist named Louis Leakey. The two married in 1937, forming a personal — as well as professional — partnership. Soon after their marriage, they moved to Tanzania, where Louis was scheduled to begin work on the Olduvai Gorge. Mary Leakey worked in East Africa for most of the rest of her life. She was particularly interested in primitive art and artifacts, but she had a real knack for finding fossils. She led the digs that resulted in two of the most important hominid discoveries in Africa: Australopithecus boisei and homo habilis.

Louis Leakey died in 1972, but Mary continued their work without him for over two more decades: excavating and cataloging, but also lecturing and fundraising. She published two books after her husband’s death: Olduvai Gorge: My Search for Early Man (1979); and her autobiography, Disclosing the Past (1984). She retired to Nairobi in 1983, and died in 1996.

Women journalists to Human Rights for the World

 

World's History on FaceBook, Feb. 1, 2026

In March 1933, the Red Room of the White House overflowed with women—reporters sitting cross‑legged on the carpet, leaning against walls, balancing notebooks on their knees. The manager of the Associated Press scoffed at the sight, predicting the whole experiment wouldn’t last six months. He was wrong by about twelve years. Eleanor Roosevelt’s strategy was deceptively simple: if news organizations wanted access to the First Lady—if they wanted to know what was happening inside the White House—they would have to hire women. No exceptions. No men allowed.

At first, she played along with the expectations of the male establishment, discussing White House social events, household decisions, and the entertaining of foreign dignitaries—topics deemed appropriate for the “women’s pages.” But everything changed when Prohibition ended. When reporters asked President Franklin Roosevelt whether beer would be served at the White House, he simply smiled and said, “Ask Eleanor.” She delivered the answer at her next women‑only press conference, forcing male reporters to beg their female colleagues for details. And she didn’t stop with beer. Week after week, she made real news—defending equal pay for equal work, advocating for low‑cost housing, speaking boldly about civil rights, and championing the idea of a minimum wage before it existed.

The press conferences quickly became essential. The Associated Press hired Bess Furman. United Press brought on Ruby Black. The New York Herald Tribune sent Emma Bugbee for “a few days,” and she stayed for months, her stories landing on the front page. Newsrooms across the country suddenly discovered that women could do the job—and that if they didn’t hire them, they couldn’t cover the First Lady. Over twelve years, Eleanor Roosevelt held 348 women‑only press conferences. Ruby Black called it “a New Deal for newswomen.”

But Eleanor Roosevelt’s influence didn’t end there. After FDR’s death in 1945, President Harry Truman appointed her as a delegate to the newly formed United Nations. Her male colleagues, assuming she posed little threat, assigned her to Committee III, which handled humanitarian and cultural issues—“soft” topics they believed would keep her out of the way. They were disastrously mistaken. She was unanimously elected chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

For three years, she navigated the treacherous landscape of early Cold War politics, uniting eighteen nations with clashing ideologies, competing interests, and deep mistrust. Communist states faced off against Western democracies. Colonial powers negotiated alongside newly independent nations. Delegates brought different religions, cultures, and definitions of “human rights.” Through it all, she listened, negotiated, compromised when possible, and stood firm when necessary.

On December 10, 1948, she presented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the UN General Assembly. The vote was overwhelming: forty‑eight nations in favor, none opposed. As the results were announced, every delegate rose in a standing ovation. Eleanor Roosevelt called the document “an international Magna Carta for all mankind.” Seventy‑six years later, it remains the foundation of international human rights law, translated into more than 500 languages and defining the fundamental rights belonging to every person on Earth.

Eleanor Roosevelt considered it (The Declaration of Human Rights) her greatest achievement—and she was right. Her journey is astonishing: from a woman holding press conferences in a crowded White House parlor because there weren’t enough chairs, to the architect of the document that defines human dignity for the world. From male reporters smirking in doorways, to male diplomats rising to applaud. From being dismissed as a housewife dabbling in politics, to drafting the moral framework of the modern era.

Eleanor Roosevelt didn’t just break glass ceilings. She built ladders so others could climb after her. And when those ladders reached high enough, she used them to lift the entire world.

See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on separate link.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

A brief overview of the Declaration of Human Rights from Wikipedia:

-----------

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that codifies some of the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a United Nations (UN) committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France. Of the 58 members of the UN at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote

 A foundational text in the history of human and civil rights, the Declaration consists of 30 articles detailing an individual's "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" and affirming their universal character as inherent, inalienable, and applicable to all human beings. Adopted as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", the UDHR commits nations to recognize all humans as being "born free and equal in dignity and rights" regardless of "nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status".

The Declaration is generally considered to be a milestone document for its universalist language, which makes no reference to a particular culture, political system, or religion. It directly inspired the development of international human rights law, and was the first step in the formulation of the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966 and came into force in 1976. Although not legally binding, the contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions and legal codes

All 193 member states of the UN have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties influenced by the Declaration, with the vast majority ratifying four or more. While there is a wide consensus that the declaration itself is non-binding and not part of customary international law, there is also a consensus in most countries that many of its provisions are part of customary law, although courts in some nations have been more restrictive in interpreting its legal effect. Nevertheless, the UDHR has influenced legal, political, and social developments on both the global and national levels, with its significance partly evidenced by its 530 translations.

At time of ratification in 1948, a map of countries how they voted.

Voting in the plenary season: Green countries voted in favor. Orange countries abstained. Black Countries failed to abstain or vote. Grey countries were not a part of the UN at time of voting.

See some background of the document here about Eleanor Roosevelt's contribution.