2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(1) publications, with the exception of one or two accounts. 133 GDNL as a cause is therefore forgotten on multiple levels. In remembering and honouring the early 1900s campaigns, it is nonetheless important to maintain a critical perspective of their campaigns and the histories written about them. These have centred on white Western heroines. As noted earlier, this article has not dealt with the likely suppression of the voices of women of colour in the earlier citizenship equality campaigns, nor has it covered the ways in which nationality and immigration laws affect(ed) women of colour in Western countries. 134 The role race and geographical inequality play in the continued neglect of GDNL is a subject that requires another study. By way of illustration, the 50 countries that retain GDNL today are, with the exception of Monaco, nonWestern. 135 This is a worrying reflection of perhaps how, once women in the West were granted full nationality rights over the course of the twentieth century, nonWestern countries were forgotten. Reflecting on the vibrancy and creativity of the early 1900s campaigns, it is disappointing to think that such urgency was not extended to, or maintained for, countries in their postcolonial independence era. VI CONCLUSION As is so often said about change-makers from the past, we stand on the shoulders of giants, and the seminal work of early twentieth century campaigners still provide key lessons and inspiration for the ongoing campaigns of today. The feeble attitude of ‘this is how it has always been done’ that surfaced in the early Irish debates on citizenship is still to be heard almost 100 years later, and remains a huge hurdle to equality in the countries that retain GDNL. Women’s rights can be tossed about as a rhetorical device, or political football, without any practical commitment from politicians in power to reform the law. However, if there is any lesson to be learned from the history of the citizenship equality campaigns it is that persistence pays. Rights advocacy can be a long game and activists may not see the fruit of their work in their own lifetime, but no committed effort is ever wasted. If the historical citizenship campaigns are no longer overlooked, the persistence and dynamism of those involved will serve as an ongoing reminder of the importance of financially supporting activists to work, in a united front, toward the full eradication of GDNL. During the interwar years, feminist campaigners were filled with energy to eradicate GDNL. At the Hague Conference in 1930, campaigners even announced that they would remain committed to the cause for another 25 years. This makes one wonder how disappointed those campaigners would be if they witnessed the persistence of GDNL almost a century later. On the other hand, it is possible to question why the energy of the interwar feminists was not carried on for the other countries that upheld GDNL in the decades that followed. One could ask too why 133 In her 2001 piece on GDNL in international law, Knop notes that challenges to GDNL were ‘currently before the courts in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan’: Knop (n 8) 91. Cherif, who provides an overview of the 1930s campaigns, analyses why GDNL was eradicated in Morocco in 2007 but not in Jordan. However, Cherif’s conclusions rely on unsubstantiated justifications and makes very problematic generalisations of those countries: see Cherif (n 7) 85. 134 For an explanation of how campaigning for women’s equal nationality rights in Britain was conducted in racist terms: see Women, Immigration and Nationality Group, Worlds Apart: Women under Immigration and Nationality Law (Pluto Press 1985). 135 The Problem (n 2). 62