Part 2
The Indian issue.
Actually, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated that the Indians lands and property should never be taken away from them without their consent, and in their property, rights and liberty should they never be disturbed. It was a sort of compensation to the Indians, who by that time had already found out what trouble the white man could cause: their lands being taken away and their destiny being determined for themselves. And yet, soon the official policy changed drastically. In 1817 president Monroe wrote that the Indians hunting way of life required a lot more territory than was compatible with the progress of civilization. He claimed there was only one way for the Indians to survive be moved from the lands attracting white farmers and then be free to live however they wanted. Thus, the official policy of resettlement of the native population began. It is a well-known fact that the lands they were resettled on were those dry and rocky ones, definitely unsuitable for white farmers, like Oklahoma, for example, which became one of the largest Indian reservations. Some of the Indian tribes tried to fight back, but unsuccessfully. An example to be adduced here is the Battle of the Little Big Horn in June 1876, where the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians, led by the Crazy Horse, met the Americans, headed by general Custer. This battle is called the biggest victory of the Indians. However, it was followed by other battles, where the Indians were defeated and then completely removed from the territories so much coveted by the whites. Theres no need to say that despite being guaranteed food, medical treatment and protection in the reservations, this wasnt the real conditions the native population was forced into. Life in the reservations was really harsh, which needs no proof enough evidence is left in the Indian literature, for instance, to see what the results of the white privilege were for these people. William Apess, the earliest major Indian writer of the XIX century, in his work called An Indians Looking Glass for the White Man describes what it was like to live in a reservation: Let me for a few moments turn your attention to the reservations in the different states of New England, and, with but few exceptions, we shall find them as follows: the most mean, abject, miserable race of beings in the worldthe females who are left alone, children half starved, and someone almost as naked as they came into the worldwhile the females are left without protection, and are seduced by white men and (are) to be destroyed by that burning, fiery curse that has swept millionsRum . The author, as an immediate representative of the race facing such a discrimination, proposes his variant of the reasons for such a miserable state of affairs: the most sensible and active men are absent at work, and besides, whats most essential, they are made to believe they are minors and have not the abilities given them from God, to take care of themselves .
Or we could take as an example An Address to the Whites by Elias Boudinot, also a writer of the XIX century, who belonged to the Cherokees. He puts forward a very logical question, the answer to which is obvious: What is an Indian? Is he not formed of the same materials with yourself?...Though it be true that he is ignorant, that he is a savage; yeteighteen centuries ago what were the inhabitants of Great Britain? .
Now that was a viewpoint of the Indian side of the conflict. I think it might be interesting to look at the standpoint of some whites (because, certainly, not all of them stuck to the racist positions such generalization would be senseless). In this sense, the poem by Robert Frost, The Gift Outright, written as late as in 1942, states these positions pretty eloquently, calling America the land which before the arrival of the Europeans unstoried, artless, unenhanced, that is, denying any Indian heritage; the Indians just didnt count, as if they hadnt existed at all.
Thus, I believe that all these literary works I resorted to in order to support the viewpoint that the European-Indian conflict was no less than the first case of racism in America on such a scale, rather than just settling it with the native population, are pretty convincing here.
The blacks issue.
Theres a multitude of sources on discrimination against the black people, considering the fact that in the XIX century many black writers appeared and, certainly, racism and slavery were their main topics.
As already stated, the first blacks arrived in America in 1619, on board of a Dutch ship, and thus the slavery got started. The import of black slaves, who were taken mainly from Portugal at that time, was prohibited in 1807, but it didnt play any role in the settlement of already existing problem, for the number of blacks kept rising. I will not dwell on the slavery issue here, for the topic of our project is racism, though slavery is often caused by racism, and in any country in the world history which had the slavery institution if there ever was a choice of whether to exploit the labor of the members of the society or of the in any way subordinate nation, there was hardly any hesitation. As I see it, the roots of this fact are again to be sought in the human psychology and commitment to the community, which I was trying to point out at the beginning. So what Id like to confine attention to is the attitude of the white people towards the black people.
Thomas Jefferson, who''s called one of the founding fathers of the USA, in his Notes on the State of Virginia, written in 1787, suggested that the blacks be liberated and educated. Nevertheless, his idea was to set up such a system in the society, which would bring the young blacks up, till they come off age and then send them to whatever place the US would need to be it a war or a colonization campaign. Thus, declare them a free and independent people, and extend themalliance and protection (though, what would a completely free and independent people need that protection for?) and then oblige them with this kind of service. Answering the question of why not retain and incorporate blacks into the state and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave, he comes up with a pretty natural for him and the majority of the American society of those times explanation. In fact, Jefferson claimed that the nature had made real distinctions between the blacks and the whites: the skin color, hair type and the whites more elegant symmetry of form, which he calls the circumstance of superior beauty. Jefferson, in fact, justified racism, saying that if that circumstance of superior beauty is thought worthy attention in the propagation of the breeds of horses and dogs, for example, then why not among men? Further, he goes on to stress the allegedly anatomical differences between the whites and the blacks, like, for example, that they require less sleep, which he concludes from the fact that a black, after hard labor day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. So, Jefferson makes the following conclusion: their inferiority is not the effect merely of their condition of life.
Thus, in my opinion, these thoughts and ideas expressed by a man who was said to be one of the most educated and intelligent in his time show the general attitude towards the black people, which remained such for a long time, and this is nothing other than the white privilege.
Theres no need to say that despite all the events of the XIX century: the victory of the northerners in the Civil war in 1865, which officially entitled blacks to voting (by the XV Amendment to the Constitution, 1870) and recognized them as full citizens of the USA (by the XIV Amendment, 1868), it all remained on the paper. The real attitude showed after the Reconstruction period somewhere around 1877, when whites came up with a new way of discrimination the segregation, and apart from founding the Ku Klux Klan in 1866, introduced literacy tests to deprive the black part of the population of the possibility to influence somehow the state of affairs in the country they lived in. In fact, in 1890-1910 all southern states passed laws imposing requirements for voting that prevented blacks from participating.
This situation remained for about a century and eventually resulted in the Civil Rights Movement, headed by Martin Luther King till his very death in 1968. The Civil Rights Movement was a non-violent struggle for political rights, and in the end in 1964 president Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill, prohibiting segregation and discrimination. Thus, some may say the movement on the whole was a success. In my opinion, that depends largely on the way the ultimate goals of the movement are understood. If we accept the political side of it, then, probably, we could say that the aim was achieved. And yet it seems that the dream Martin Luther King was speaking about in his famous speech in 1963 was about the change in attitudes. I have a dream that my four little children will live one day in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,- thats what the Kings ultimate goal was. And in this sense, the Civil Rights Movement seems to have changed nothing at all. The very fact of Kings assassination in 1968 made it pretty obvious. As I see it, the movement failed to change the general attitude of the whites, who stuck to racist positions.
Immigration.
Immigration is the reason for many conflicts that have arisen on the American continent. Americans are very reasonably called the nation of immigrants, because, not taking into consideration the fact that all the Europeans, or rather non-Indians in general are in America no more than immigrants, nowadays theres hardly anyone in the USA, who wouldnt have several nationalities mixed in their ancestry.
Immigration into the USA happened in waves, and was caused by a variety of reasons: economic, political, religious ones. Early immigration, in the XVII-XVIII centuries, i.e. during the so-called Colonial period (1620-1783), was from the European countries, from the north-western ones, which caused no discomfort in the society. The countries of emigration were Britain, Holland, Germany and Sweden. In the XIX century, during the National period of American history (1820-1900), massive immigration started, and was again divided into several stages. In 1820-1840 around 1mln people came from north-western Europe. They continued coming in 1840-1880, but at this stage more and more people from continental Europe started to arrive, for example, Jews and the Polish. The events, which caused this mass emigration from Europe, were poor crops, political conflicts, potato famine in Ireland in 1845-1849, where the population lived on potato crops, revolution in Germany in 1848 and other. The influx of immigrants increased so much that the US government set up an entry port at Ellis Island in New York, where the immigrants were examined by the doctors and their eligibility was checked.
The serious problems started at the beginning of the XX century. 81% of all the immigrants at this stage came from southern and eastern Europe from Italy, Russia, Greece; and 16% - from Latin America. These newcomers were too different from the majority of the Americans in cultural and every other sense, which caused a great discomfort in the society.
To make the picture complete, in the last decade of the XX century the USA became a destination for people from former USSR, with more and more Hispanics and Asians arriving at the same time.
Thus, it seems that with such a huge number of people arriving from all over the world and bringing their own culture with them customs, traditions and the outlook on the way life should be avoiding cultural misunderstanding is impossible, and where the understanding ends, hatred and fear often begins. Hence, the very course of the development of the United States implied existence and at times escalation of tension and conflicts among different nations, represented there.
|
