PREFACE
……But, on the other hand, there is the idea called “freedom”. At the center of all questions in a free society stands the individual need for identity and self-determination.
This book investigates the question of why so much social disparity exists between different ethnic and cultural groups in American history. By extension, what is looked for here is why such differences of opportunity persist. The results that are sought in writing this book involve what to do about the future of individual, cultural, and ethnic diversity in the United States of America. Identifications of race persist as different from definitions of American. Regardless of the benefits, the historic costs of inclusion in that definition are variable. Gender and social class are perpetually contentious issues, but even more central is the relationship of cultural diversity to American social institutions. Why and how do cultural diversity and social institutions mutually effect each other, and what are the practical results of social change? This is the heart of the role of the individual in society. People are concerned about how to better their condition. Therefore, any historic examination of American society and culture should be aimed at activism and social transformation.
History as a discipline has its own set of contexts. At times history has served to legitimize nationalism, colonialism, slavery, genocide, sexism, class-ism, and other identities of power and privilege. Only relatively recently have revisionist historians moved to a premise of intellectual activism and social transformation. Applied social science was the result. The concept that the skills and knowledge of social sciences had applications for the solution of human problems meant a new commitment to social responsibility. Post revisionists of the last few decades have drifted away from the sometimes strident and occasionally exclusionary excesses of the early revisionists. However, an additional casualty of attempts at a balanced approach has been the commitment to activism and social transformation. This anthology attempts both a balanced portrayal of American society and culture, while also strongly advocating intellectual activism as a tool toward social transformation.
An anthology, such as this, can offer balance by providing for original voices to be heard on their own terms. Each document is “as is” – in the spelling, grammar and idiom of the original writers. To be sure, as in American history, each inclusion occurs at the exclusion of others, partly as a concession to space. However, each inclusion represents the beginnings of a dialog in which the reader is invited to participate. And, each article or document has been selected to include the widest range of cultural and social input. Efforts toward activism and social transformation require critical thought to be based on broad sources of information. But, also the tools of critical thought themselves must be sharpened toward the challenges of the future. These intellectual tools are a major feature of this anthology. Intellectual activism is a process of interactive education implying thought and deed. It is not enough to simply reflect. Nor is thoughtless action productive of social transformation. Applied social science requires participation in a process of both critical thought and socially responsible action. This anthology invites the reader to use the articles and documents interactively with each other and with the exercises in critical thought as the beginnings of a process of activism and social transformation.
At the nexus of these social and cultural questions of American history is the concept of identity. Cultural identity is a prime source of personal authority and self-determination. In a social context, identity forms the basis for power and privilege. From where does an individual identity originate? How is identity perpetuated? How is it shared? To what degree can there really be a national identity, whether it be considered social, cultural, or ethnic? Because if identity cannot be shared equally by all members of a Nation, then to what degree can the Nation expect individuals to participate in the common goal that Nationality represents? If you are non-white, an immigrant, a woman, gay or lesbian, disabled, or a host of other institutionally defined diverse groups, the question simply put becomes, what’s in it for me? Historically and presently, the answer has been shades of “less than” or “nothing.”
We are all looking at a twenty-first century world, with twenty-first century problems that must be faced collectively. A century ago, the sense of collective commitment to a clearer set of common goals was based on an even narrower concept of American identity. At that time, far more diverse elements of American society were optimistic about their ability to become American and share fully in that collective identity. Now, a century later, many of those illusions have been shattered. We are a melting pot that didn’t. Many cultural groups have found their access to the American dream to be socially limited by sets of formal and informal institutions. Yet people still come to America. Why, and what can we do to preserve individual, cultural opportunity while sharing in the social commitment of national identity is the subject of this book.
Born here, I have lived in this United States of America, as a marginalized citizen preoccupied with the question why. My cultural and ethnic identity has sustained me even as my social identity has been redefined, largely by institutional forces beyond my control. I have lived long enough to be colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American (a hair style), and African-American. I am often asked – quite genuinely – why I am not satisfied with simply being an American. This is because while the above names were labels put on me by formal government institutions, other, more informal labels like coon, jig, Nigger, jungle bunny, spear chucker, and Alabama porch monkey, were consistent reminders of my otherness. To me, the Confederate flag – the “stars and bars” still popular in many parts of the U.S. – can never be a symbol of anything but a history of hate. More recently, I have been labeled an urban problem, an ethnic minority, a member of an underrepresented group, a member of an over-entitled group, and so on. I am not satisfied with being simply an American because rarely am I treated simply as an American, much less as an individual. I become, instead, an object, interchangeable with others of my type.
But, where I have been marginalized socially, I have thrived culturally, and ethnically. At times when I am reminded of my inability to share purely in the social identity of American, my sanctuary has been my cultural and ethnic identity. There is great strength in separateness, but it is the strength of a person or a people, not the strength of a Nation. Many like me, who see their identity as an American to be less than that of others, feel denied. Each of us has something powerful to contribute. In being denied full American identity, many will deny America the individual and collective power of their diversity. America, in denying us will eventually lose the value of our potential. Who and what an American is results from the individuals position between personal culture and the institutions of society. This book is about the value and persistence of diversity. It was written for we who will not deny ourselves and who still struggle to be American in a Nation that often denies us. And, this book was written for those who still ask why I am not satisfied with simply being an American.
INTRODUCTION
AMERICAN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY
American history is a history of diversity. It is an ongoing social and cultural experiment involving those who consider themselves indigenous with they who are considered immigrant. This cultural synthesis is controlled by social institutions that themselves must evolve in response to the possible inclusion of the other, the newcomer, the outsider. Ever since Europeans have used the name America, there have been problems of inclusion, and exclusion. But, who is an American? The consistent denial by original European immigrants of a role for either indigenous Native Americans or imported Africans in the American experience was just a beginning. Gender, religion, and class joined ethnicity as reasons for exclusion from the society and culture of power and privilege that were, and are fundamental to American identity. American history is the story of the struggles for inclusion, identity, and self-determination. Individuals and groups continued contributing, and demanding a part in a national cultural identity, regardless being of marginal social status.
A new American society and culture was formed and reformed as colony expanded into nation, and nation into world power. At each historic juncture – each point in time – America has redefined both its culture and social institutions based on who was encountered, embraced, or denied. Since the Declaration of Independence, American culture and society has been philosophically based on freedom and self-determination. Yet, when economic and political leaders sat down to form the philosophies of revolution into the formal institutions of society, the Constitution that was produced was a document of exclusion. Social institutions of the new United States of America placed clear limits on inclusion of diversity in the culture of the United States of America. “We the people” meant the class of wealthy White male property owners, who for the most part were products of the Protestant faith, if not ethic. Outside of Constitution Hall, America was always a rainbow of diversity. The Nation encompassed (if not embraced) men and women of a wide variety of cultural and ethnic origins, bringing a diversity of aspirations and aptitudes. It becomes far more relevant to ask not what American Culture is, but to ask what does it mean to be an American.
Just as the formal institutions of the United States governed the opportunities of the diverse American cultures, so also did the informal institutions of America impose limits. In the end, many individuals found personally cultivated networks of culture to be the foundation of opportunity. For those unmentioned, overlooked, or expressly denied by the formal and informal social institutions of the United States of America, culture was (and sometimes still is) the sole basis for opportunity.
American history and thus American social identity has mostly been the product of the same institutional influences of power and privilege. In the earliest incarnations, U.S history was the written record made by the class of wealthy White male property owning Protestants. It should not be surprising that this record, like the Constitution, served primarily its authors. Fortified with both a clearly defined social role of power and privilege linked to a clearly articulated cultural identity infused with a sense of superiority, it is no wonder that the Nation and the discipline of history have remained controlled by a few instead of the many. In recent times, however, new interpretations of history have significantly revised the discipline and broadened the definition of American identity. The most significant aspect of revisionist history is an inclusive quality that enriches the range of human possibility.
Just what it means to be an American for many – such as myself – is still a question without a satisfactory answer. Who I am is part the result of the past. This cultural identity is in layers, personal, familial, and ethnically historic. However, a portion of my identity is the product of who I am seen to be. This social identity is composed of how formal and informal institutions characterize me. My full identity as an American results from the options I exercise between the two. My identity as an American is both social and cultural. To be an American is to have many options and many limitations. America’s past, present and future histories are the results of those who employ the most of the options against limitation.
This is a fundamentally American expression in culture and character.
This anthology is interdisciplinary, because the real world is. This text is multicultural, because the real world is. This book takes the position that intellectual activity must result in activism, because that is how the real people change the real world for the better. Social transformation does not just happen mysteriously through luck, but must be the result of work. And, for a society to be a success by any criteria, it must actively embrace the efforts of all diverse individual resources. This is an American social and cultural history anthology. However, history means nothing unless it serves individuals in the context of society.
American history is defined by the relationship between society and culture – between institutions and individuals. American society is defined by its institutions. Culture in American history is defined by individuals, some real, some totally imagined, most a blend of the two. Almost all of the individuals who have been used by historians to define American culture in history books have been male and white. Based on these examples, American culture is often considered to be a relatively uniform and nationally shared phenomenon from which sub-cultures may deviate, but nevertheless orbit. This is a trick of perspective, and a curse on multicultural studies. The word “sub-cultures” itself, like “minorities” suggests inferior status. American institutions treat individuals as if they represent groups. Culture, in the most basic analysis, is the fundamental set of conscious and unconscious assumptions that govern an individual persons set of responses to the environment. For people, the environment is largely made of the formal and informal social institutions structured to govern our collective group behavior. And here is the trick of perspective. Any shared American culture must result from individual responses to collective institutions. And our social institutions evolve through interactions with individuals. We remain individual, but necessarily must each respond to similar institutions. Culture serves the individual. Society serves groups. This interplay between social institutions and individual culture produces the events of American history.
This text is an interdisciplinary experience into American social, cultural, and ethnic history. Readings and documents are drawn from many sources in the making of this text. Although this is primarily a history book, many disciplines contribute to its wholeness. Scholarly authors are found alongside literary giants or government officials. Heroes, poets, and common people share their perspectives next to political activists and academics. This is important. What we in the United States call America and American history is really the written account of many. Like on the dollar bill: E Pluribus Unum – the many into one, a kind of plural unity. If you ask a Guatemalan, a Canadian, or a Brazilian what they would call themselves other than those national political titles, they would call themselves Americans – North, South, and Central -- but still Americans. So too within the United States, the answers to what it means to be an American differs. It may be Italian, or Lakota, Basque, or African, Mexican, or Japanese, Dine, Filipino, or Irish -- all hyphenated Americans. Fear not, there is a clear answer to the question of what it means to be an American. The issue is that there are many voices answering. Some of the voices are from the past, but all speak to a continuing future as Americans. Some voices have been heard over others. Some have scarcely been heard at all. Yet all are significant in the making of American society and culture.
Just as there can be no single answer to the question of what it means to be an American, so too there can be no single way of seeking that answer. Instead, there are many disciplines, many cultures, and many people. There are probably hundreds of thousands of particular names, dates, and events in American history. In fact, there are far, far too many particulars for any investigator or text to encompass. The only reasonable course is to learn concepts instead of raw rambling totals of fact. History is a chain of causes and effects and not just names, dates, and events. Looking at history as a process generates problem-solving skills that are valuable to students and citizens. By examining historic limitations and opportunities for social and cultural change, the processes influencing present and future events becomes clearer, and sets of possibilities revealed. This is an issue oriented applied approach of intellectual activism. In this way, new facts can be critically analyzed as they arise. The individual in American society becomes more powerful in a number of ways and for a number of purposes.
Exercises and selections in this interdisciplinary anthology are conceptual doorways to intellectual activism and critical thought. It is not so important what you know as it is the many ways you can know.
The theoretical orientations of this anthology come primarily from methodologies of both history and anthropology. A theoretical orientation is a point of view that provides the intellectual tools for problem solving. Theoretical orientations become vantage points from which American society and culture can be viewed. Observations will inevitably lead to judgments. Clear criteria for judgment must be set. Interdisciplinary sets of criteria – or theoretical orientations – insure an inclusive interpretation of American history. Historical and anthropological theory provides the interdisciplinary criteria for these analyses of American society and culture.
Institutions of American society have suffered from short-term perspectives that deliver short term and often ultimately ineffective solutions. We study history because all that is now has a history, and all that is now will become history. We exist now and historically as cultural beings. Our foremost tool is culture. Culture has been our way of dealing with the natural environment for so long that we exist, thrive, and prosper mostly through cultural and social behavior. Foremost among human intellectual tools for analyzing culture is the discipline of anthropology. Theoretical orientations in this text will shift between those of history and anthropology as needed.
Adopting a historical perspective proves valuable because what American culture is now, is not what it was, or what it will become. History means change over time. What it has meant to be (or to become) an American is a matter of historic context and interpretation of significance. In the late 1960s an evenings’ dinner option for “average” Americans would never have included the possibility of a Vietnamese restaurant. Americans were killing and being killed by those people. One hundred years ago, the Monica Lewinsky affair would have made little impact on an American president. And because press of earlier eras mostly turned a blind eye to such things private presidential affairs usually had even less impact on the American people. Dr. King, the Kennedys, Waco, Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, 9/11, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the list goes on…The fundamental understanding of the American identity has – and continues to be – forever changed by such historic events.
And historian’s perspectives vary. Each cloaks their interpretation of the meaning of the facts with the mantle of academic certainty, but many accounts are just that – interpretations. We rely as heavily as possible on original written sources of information – on primary source documents. Those are (mostly) the facts. But, history is only the partial written account of past events. All events were not rigorously recorded. Of the events that were, first person (original source) accounts often differ - sometimes dramatically - from one another. Rarely do two people see the same thing in the same way. Each eyewitness has a different perspective, as well as an individual background, and a different interpretation of events. Add to this the interpretations of historical significance of facts rendered secondarily by distant and supposedly objective scholars, who themselves are not without an agenda…well, you see. Though we must strive for it, total objectivity is a sham and a physical impossibility. To understand this is essential to the realization of the effects of history on culture. But it is also fundamental to deciphering the effects of culture on history. Historians are people, and as such are products of our own history and culture. Bound by our own time and beliefs, we cannot help from investing ourselves in our work. Always, it is like the old story about the three blind men describing the elephant. We never know it was gray.
The best that can humanly be done is to compare subjective realities to approximate objective reality. This is the interdisciplinary approach. This is where anthropology comes in. Anthropologists investigate and compare cultures. Like historians, anthropologists are human; however anthropologists are also involved in a discipline that consistently makes them aware of cultural influences on objectivity. At the core of anthropological inquiry rests a multidisciplinary assumption. The idea – or theoretical orientation – that there are many valuable tools available from the diverse perspectives of human inquiry. Human experience is far too complex to be evaluated on the basis of one situation, motivation, or event. A diverse amount of disciplines must be brought to bear on any individual or historic context. Anthropology fills that need to explain the “Why?” of the human social & cultural adventure. Art, biology, technology, philosophy, theology, and many more disciplines are tools to investigate any subject. Anthropologists are by training, education and experience, interdisciplinary thinkers. This theoretical orientation is comparative and integrative. Even the most cursory observations of America reveal a wide range of influences affecting American culture and society. Apart from fairly overt particulars of historical events, there is an ever subtle and often more complex cultural dynamic to American life. There are the questions: Why and How? Anthropology is adept at asking the kinds of questions that produces answers explaining why America is the way it is – of why and how we became who we are – and of who we are likely to become.
Anthropology also offers a key model for investigating the question of what it means to be an American. Cultural anthropology has within it a spirited debate over what influences social and cultural change the most. This argument can be summed up by the statement: “nature versus nurture.” On one hand, we are the products of our background – our nature – and those influences determine our reality. On the other hand, we are the result of our environment – of how we are nurtured – and we can learn to be anything we want. It is clear that both influences are important factors. The disagreement is over which influence determines our behavior. If we apply these concepts to society and culture, we may have one of the foremost tools for understanding what it means to be an American. Are we who we are because of our social background (nature), or are we who we are because of what we cultivate through culture (nurture)? In this book, it is the interplay between the nature of society versus the nurturing influence of culture that produces what it means to be an American.
What American anthropology has missed is the concept from history that events which have transpired have done so from within their own temporal context. That persons, places, and things were at one moment in time the unique creations of human agency. History recognizes the moment of decision. The moment when through intimidation or inspiration, the individual decides on change or decides to resist change. History is change over time. Any historic moment in time has its own context that makes it unique and human. Persons who viewed places and took note of things from their own perspectives acted creatively or otherwise in specific ways and generating specific events in time. But historians often wear only one set of glasses and seek single sets of causes for events.
What history has often missed is the anthropological concept that there are many senses to be used in deciding what something is, or why and how it became that way. It is often absurd and always entertaining to the average citizen that a “nationalist” historian will argue so strongly against the view of, say a “revisionist” historian. It is clear to the average citizen that nationalism has its place among many aspects of daily life and that (maybe all) history is in need of some revision.
Anthropology’s interdisciplinary network approach and history’s cause-action-effect linear approach balance and invigorate one another. The failures and successes of human history studied from the anthropological realizations of why those events may have occurred provide the intellectual tools/weapons for social transformation and activism.
The challenge is to cultivate a community of learning that embraces as much as possible of the human/American experience. To generate a new eclectic renaissance perspective that operates in fluid process, and is not overly mired in static particulars. It is the type of liberal arts education that is fit for the twenty-first century. The accelerated and potentially volatile nature of current American society demands the cultivation of a broad understanding of cultural reality and social diversity. On the individual level, the social goal is to build an organic network of opportunities, clearly understanding the functions and potential dysfunction(s) of American society. Many purely academic traditions are static and artificially isolate subject matter that must be integrated and active in real world environments. Like the many inventions that historically went into the development of a modern automobile. If we consider the parts separately, and in isolation, it’s nearly impossible to tell how they unite to get you down the road. In social science, an interdisciplinary approach develops an individual’s skill at cultivating an understanding of how to influence their situation in positive ways.
INTELLECTUAL ACTIVISM, SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION,
& SELF-DETERMINATION
The central emphasis here is critical thought, intellectual activism, and social transformation. The idea that society can improve through planned concerted social action. This is not a new concept. The political philosophy: “of, by, and for the people” is the foundation of American social institutions. The idea that democracy should be in balance with federal and republican principles for the betterment of all is still progressive intellectual currency. Democracy is still radical. But, the belief that government should work for the citizen (or at least stay out of the way) is a major historic social transformation that is in large part responsible for birthing a common American culture. America – before and since it was called that – has always been about social transformation.
It may well be central to the human cultural experience that we seek, collectively and individually, to better our lot. But, it must be asked: from the limitations of what (cultural or social) perspective? By what criteria do we evaluate ourselves? Intellectual activism is thought interacting with deed. It means a process of individual and collective self-evaluation. Differing concepts of progress and what is better for the common good are set against equally variable and diverse visions of individual good. Sometimes American social transformations have been the result of intellectual activism. Most often they have not. Historically in America, moral relativism in its excess gives way to cultural absolutism, only to see excess absolutism to retreat, in turn before relativism. A socially active role requires equilibrium. Critical thought is the primary form of balanced intellectual activism. Honest and ongoing self-critique linked to the analysis of what is going on socially opens the door to effective intellectual activism. The stakes are the state of the human condition in America.
We could move through life “fat, dumb, and happy” as my Texas/Oklahoma grandfather would say, or we could at least try to do something about our own condition. Does history really repeat itself? Of course not. There are recurring events to be sure. But, these are symptoms of underlying social and cultural issues that have not been fully resolved. All too often, the American social response to events is reactive and focused on symptoms, not underlying or inherent causes. Responding after the fact with outpourings of concern, sympathy, or indignant outrage, bureaucratic officials representing formal social institutions pass the buck, or – if it’s an election year – throw public dollars and rhetoric at problems. Private citizens, ever focused on servicing social needs, frequently respond viscerally and reactively. Mollified, tranquilized and isolated by social/cultural circumstance, most citizens’ pursuit of intellectually active social transformation is limited. Seemingly recurring events are like coughs and fevers of an organism called America of which we are all a part. It is as if American society catches pneumonia, and is treated with cough syrup. For cancer, a band-aid. Thus many problems of a social nature persist to the point of crisis. This text is concerned with a deeper diagnosis of the health of the American condition in reference to culture and society. Intellectual activism is a proactive – not reactive – position. The Civil Rights movement, the NRA, the Feminist movement, and the Ku Klux Klan are all America. So is the Museum of Tolerance and the Southern Poverty Law Center. American history includes these and a host of quite conscious, intellectually active, and socially transformative phenomenon. Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and owned slaves -- a living contradiction between culture and society. Enslaved Africans and Indian wars - we have our own holocausts.
The route of self-determination is open. Any individual can decide to change the conditions of her/his own life. Seek social transformation. Knowledge is not an ivory tower antiseptic activity of intellectual elites. Knowledge is transformative. This text involves intellectual activism and social transformation. By studying the intellectual activism and social transformations of America, new avenues of personal change and growth become realities. In American history, the individual has always been at the nexus (junction) between two realities – society and culture. Some level of conformity is an unavoidable part of a social existence. However, all things can be both limiting and enriching. Any direction mitigates or eliminates others. This is especially true of the relationship of the individual (representative of culture, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.) to society. Partly because social institutions are group oriented, the needs of the individual are discounted, overlooked, purposefully ignored. So individual identity only becomes socially effective when the individual affiliates with a group – when one becomes many. When society fails the individual, the individual relies on culture. This is why diversity in America persists. This is America. The life of the individual American is a struggle between the social demand for a single unified America and the interplay of individual diverse culture.
Anthropology centers on Culture (with a capital “C”) and human diversity. Immigration, emigration and in-migration have provided for astonishing and more than occasionally disturbing amounts of American cultural diversity. The theoretical orientations of anthropology contain the tools for analysis not only of Culture – the singular, but also of cultures – the plural. Perhaps the most significant aspects of American history have been the challenges of human diversity and human rights. Although America is clearly not a melting pot, nevertheless, out of this dynamic has come a distinct American culture, singular and unique. And because of the continuing influences of diversity in culture and society, American culture is far from static.
Always in America there has been culture(s). Apart from agency, culture and change are the consistent essential factors in the human experience. Undeniably, throughout history many geographic locations within and outside of the Americas have been host to dramatic social and cultural changes. However, the brief history of the United States of America can be seen as one of the most unique and sometimes bizarre experiments in human social and cultural diversity in any historic age. The United States of America was given birth by social and cultural diversity. America has both accepted and restricted vast amounts of immigrants from every corner of the world. Always the offer to the diverse peoples of the world was an opportunity for self-determination. Many craved the ability to undergo a social transformation, become Americans, and to improve their individual and collective conditions. Always – at least initially – the United States was to benefit also.
The social and political foundation of the United States of America is – as will be shown – intellectual activism and social transformation. The radically aggressive social institutions and cultural values of we who ethnocentrically call ourselves Americans have resulted in a historically lightning swift movement to continental, hemispherical and global significance. A peculiar facet of the American cultural and historic experience is that we assume change means progress – and that progress is always for the better. So far, many indications clearly show that we have fallen prey to fallacy. Historic data reveals change as inevitable, but progress requires copious quantities of vision and effort. A whole era of American Progressives met with mixed success partly because of such unquestioned assumptions. Intellectual activism continually requires analytic self-assessment. One need only examine the headlines to see that we have not always changed for the better. If we as Americans are going to unavoidably change, then we owe it to those who come after us – to the victims of our progress – to get it right.
Anthropologic research has demonstrated that cultural (and biologic) diversity may well provide for the widest range of opportunities for survival and prosperity. Cultural and individual diversity (AKA freedom) offer the broadest possible base for positive social change. However, America’s history of social intolerance to diversity and cultural difference has also become one of the single greatest potential threats to the prosperity of the Nation (and perhaps human survival as a species). This is especially true in the case of the American failure to celebrate (not just tolerate) ethnic diversity. We have created social institutions to control our prosperity. Many of those institutions also have controlled the specific prosperity of select groups of our society as a whole. American institutions treat diverse groups differently. There is institutional racism. Gender, class, ethnicity, nationality, and culture have all become reasons for formal and informal discrimination. Human potential becomes limited when social institutions fail to celebrate diversity. American potential is denied when American institutions limit the contributions of cultural diversity. The richness and vitality of what it means to be an American is rendered bland and colorless. All Americans suffer the loss of opportunities to survive and thrive when any single aspect of American culture is denied. Each stereotype dehumanizes us all.
Between ethnic groups in the United States, there continues to be fear, oppression, and violence based on the American mythology of racism. Class conflict is a reality. Gender and age discrimination thrives. And then, consider the relationship between the Nations of the world. No need to reference any specific headline, the nature and frequency of incident guarantees the reader my example.
“Just because that’s the way it is” was the perennially disappointing answer I would get. You see, I was one of those annoying kids that kept asking why. Then, when I got an answer, my response would usually be: “but why?” Why do people get scared? Why are there poor people? Why is there war? Why do some people that I don’t even know like (or dislike) me just because of the way I look, dress, or act? There was never a satisfactory answer. I continue asking. I have added such questions as how? or when?, and others. As an older annoying kid, I realize that there is no one answer. We lump our reasons why together. Glib and trite reasons under the umbrellas of culture, society, race, class, gender, and a host of other abstract groupings are used to explain individual circumstances. At a point, they are no more informative than “just because that’s the way it is” was. Though we are part of groups, we are not stereotypic representatives of our group. Group answers to individual questions are more than imprecise conveniences. These group answers become shared perspectives. While the ultimate reality is that we are all individuals, our social institutions are group institutions. The truth of the human (American) situation is that individual problems, goals, aspirations, and assets are shared through social context. We thrive as individuals by being organized socially. We are all in this together.
But, on the other hand, We are all in this alone. There is the idea called “freedom”. At the center of all questions stands the individual need for identity, self-worth, and self-determination. When balanced against the day-to-day social realities of American power and privilege, the cultivation of individual culture often becomes the sole bulwark for survival.
Herein lays a certain responsibility. It is the responsibility of the one to the many, and of the many to the one. Group identity works both for and against the individual. No more factious and visceral a battle cry is there than “you don’t really know how it is to be” Black, or a Woman, or Gay, or Poor. In truth, no one really knows what it is to be anyone else. American culture and society is made of elements of shared individual experience. What must not be forgotten is that what are being shared are similar, yet individual experiences.
The original documents of American social and cultural history are in conflict with many aspects of modern post revisionist, “politically correct” America. Old decisions are gone. No longer should we be “us” or “them”. The names have changed but the song remains the same. Beware. Often, the new “PC” merely trains us to demote individual genius and flawed success in favor of conformity to new dividing lines. The dynamic tension between culture and society remain, with the individual citizen at the center.
From intellectually diverse sources come metaphors for the value of diversity. Biologically, we, as a human race, exist due to our diversity. Wholeness and vitality are products of dynamic interactions between apparent contradictions. The Male principle has value only because of Female principle, and poverty only has meaning in the face of wealth. Human diversity is human potential. Our differences are enriching opportunities that drive social and cultural change. Intellectual activists see diversity of all types as sources of social transformation.
In American history, many turning points have occurred -- some for the better, some for the worse. How are better and worse to be defined? Better and worse are defined by the transformations effected in social institutions by the continuous interactions with cultures, ethnicity, gender, & class. Better is a transformation to the benefit of the lowest/weakest/most (see Thanksgiving). How to define worse? That social transformation that limits, excludes, denies, or oppresses. This is not a liberal or conservative political position. This definition of better or worse - like in a marriage - embraces self-determination – the primary sense of freedom that this nation professes to be founded upon. It is the “bottom line” of day to day existence and potential for all Americans.
What does it mean to be an American? Is it a type, a hyphen, an image, a myth, an acronym like WASPM?
ON MULTICULTURALISM & INTERDISCIPLINARY BIAS:
Moving Beyond “Tolerance”
Intellectual liberals argue for multiculturalism from a context of inclusiveness. To an intellectual liberal – a real liberal – argument and critical analysis proceeds from an assumption of minority status. The struggle is to provide a diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and solutions to human needs. Multiculturalists do not exclude or omit.
Those who label themselves intellectual conservatives and the extremists among them who fashion themselves anti multiculturalists (Bloom, Bork, Lawler, Thornton & Jacoby) argue their cases from within a context of exclusion. Conservative intellectual argument all too often proceeds from a reactionary assumption. Seeing themselves in a possible minority status, their responses are often filiopietist, threatened, and ethnocentrically defensive, if not outright reactive. Intellectual conservatism limits inquiry and denies active participation in social growth and change. Indeed, change seems to be a threat, even though – ironically – change is the only human constant. Civilizations ebb and flow away, people are born, mature, live, and die. All changes.
In seeking a balance between the unnecessary duality of the liberal versus the conservative critique, the common citizen needs a wide exposure to both concepts and situations that define and demand continuing re-definition of what human social and cultural experience embraces. While this text places itself squarely within the liberal intellectual tradition, the current state of liberal critique and pedagogy are not above objective analysis – at least as objective an analysis as is possible. Liberal intellectual critique has all too often become prey to fashion and reductionist fad. An instant rejection of all things European, Judeo-Christian, and Y chromosome does no service to broadening inclusion or deepening intellectual debate. If there is one thing that multiculturalism has shown to be true, it is that no group can realistically elevate itself by standing on the neck of others. Far too many shallow liberal analyses of intellectual conservatism see excluding conservatism as establishing liberalism. Neither of those points of view are multicultural or interdisciplinary. It must be all right to be different.
Conservative intellectual critics often assert that the academic world should hold itself aloof from activism. For them the campus should not be a proving ground for deeds, but only for thoughts. Modern conservative educators state that the academic world should be a kind of ivory tower of pure reason in which the great educators supposedly lived. (Socrates is often used as a model. This conservative pietist illusion fades when one realizes that historically Socrates died as a social activist). The cruel reality to this conservative pseudo-objective fantasy is that all deeds begin as thoughts. On a social level, it becomes absolutely essential for human prosperity to have those deed-generating thoughts and ideas to be as rational and inclusive as possible.
College and the university are some of the most socially transforming institutions of American society. They are also instruments of individual change. Conservatives and liberals both agree on this. Asserting that the goals and identity of the individual have great social value, this text places the individual and self-determination in the center of the university. The common good is never really served otherwise, only the majority or the controlling minority. History shows that (for better or worse) the lack of self-determination results in marginalization, dominance, and oppression.
Examine the dialog between intellectual conservative and liberal, both make some good points. They both overlook a host of diversity issues. Both ignore the potential brought to the table by individual diversity, focusing instead only on the collective. It is also a peculiar American irony that American culture elevates the individual, while American social institutions function only through group identity and political organization.
Interdisciplinary bias refers to this text’s theoretical orientation that historically, the many disciplines of academia -- similar to the many peoples of American society – have been kept artificially separated. As in the nature of people in real-world American society, intellectual disciplines must interrelate and co-function in order to remain vital, active, and productive.
Featuring works generated from a diversity of disciplines demands not only critical thought, but also insists on a certain intellectual activism on the part of the reader. In order to reconcile the differing disciplines represented, the reader must move beyond thought to action. In actively examining the pieces in this anthology, analyzing their relative perspectives, and evaluating their significance, the reader will unavoidably glimpse new aspects of the truths of what it means to be an American.
This evaluation invites the readers to acknowledge realities different from their own. The real challenge is to move beyond acknowledgement to tolerance. But tolerance suggests the mere suspension of discomfort in the presence of the “other”, who will be “put up with” until “normalcy” returns. The task, then, is to stride beyond tolerance, which implies distant (and distasteful) resignation to diversity, to acceptance. Accepting diversity develops the embrace of the “other” as an opportunity for growth. Advancing beyond acceptance will require casting off notions of “otherness” and separation implicit in group identities. When each individual in a social context ceases to be perceived as a representative of their group, the celebration of uniqueness occurs. People can be valued for who, not what, they are. Celebration of diversity – the final step – involves the realization of individual worth.
HISTORY, RACE, CULTURE, SOCIETY, ETHNICITY, & CLASS
DEFINITIONS
Terms like race, ethnicity, and nationality are often used interchangeably by media. Those terms as well as others by which we define ourselves are quite important. And – perhaps more seriously in the social context – terms by which others define us are frequently decisive factors in how we all get along. Labels are the center of our relationships. Individual and collective identity hinge on what we assume those terms to mean. This assumption of meaning affects everyone’s daily reality. It becomes essential to understanding ourselves socially and culturally to know what we call ourselves and why. There are the many well-known derogatory and offensive stereotypes, but what is important here are the terms that are socially acceptable and politically correct. The misuse and misunderstanding of these few key terms can and has distorted human relationships on a historic scale.
HISTORY
History is the incomplete written record or oral tradition of the experiences of humans through the contexts of time. While there are many types of history – such as political, economic, technological, or social history – all are dependant on documents and their interpretation. History, like language, is very plastic. Historians have been both under and have cast the spell of history for various reasons and diverse ends. An important anthropological fact here is that individual historians are products of unique interactions between their predisposition and historic context (environment through time).
All of the following definitions are historically dependent. That is to say that their specifics have all changed over time depending on the factors of their historic context.
SOCIETY
A society is an artificial construction of a collection of formal and informal institutions that govern group behavior. At their best these social institutions, as instruments of order and control, seek to do the most good for the majority. This means that by their very nature, formal and informal social institutions mitigate, reject, or ignore minority concerns. This also means that social institutions are characteristically reactive. Proactive behavior in social institutions is limited by bureaucratic development. The more formal and bureaucratic the social institution, the more reactive it will be. The more bureaucratic the social institution, the more its proactive potential will be focused on self-maintenance and defense. This appears to be a progressive feature of formal social institutions.
CULTURE
Culture is the set of conscious and unconscious individual beliefs and assumptions about the way in which world works that governs individual behavior. As the word infers, culture can be the product of cultivation on the conscious level. This means that culture is plastic and changeable, organic and vital. There are many cultures. Elements of culture are both shared and personal. Culture is always ahead of social institutions (until historically recently). Although culture is not fully proactive, culture remains as the intimate and personal tool for individual day to day problem solving. As people in America confront the changing issues of life, they react through culture far more rapidly than either formal or informal social institutions can. Culture changes whether we will it or not.
COMMUNITY
Communities in America are formed from the interactions of culture and society. When individuals are united into groups by complimentary internal (cultural) and external (social) influences, the groups of people can be identified as communities. Such a group of people who share common assumptions about the way the world works, and who are identified within a social context, need not be physically in contact, or segregated in order to feel a sense of community. Always, very few members of such a group share every aspect of cultural belief, or of social role. Commonalities exist, but members of a community retain individuality.
(Note: Keep in mind that the verb: govern, implies both the promotion and limitation of freedom.)
RACE
Biologically, there is only one race – human. All other categories of race are artificial social constructs of classification based on visual differences, cultural expressions, political necessity, and economic priority. What is commonly called race is really racism. The history of the concept of race parallels the development of the American identity. The hierarchical classification of the ethnicities of the world is a by-product of the same European intellectual influences that generated colonialism in general, and the formative philosophies of the United States in particular.
RACISM (also called ethnocentrism)
Racism exists when a labeled group is disadvantaged socially based on the artificial classifications of race by another group in possession of unearned power and privilege to do so.*
ETHNICITY
Ethnicity refers to heritage or culture expressed over time. The cultural history of a group of people produces differences in populations that give rise – both culturally and biologically – to ethnicity.
CLASS
Class is the stratified level of economic opportunity within a culture or society. Class differences – differences in opportunity and access – may be based on racism, ethnicity, gender, education, age, disability or a host of other recognized group classifications.
GENDER
Gender refers to the social roles and rules of behavior attributed to biological sex. Gender is not sex, but is instead what it means to “be a man.” or to “act like a lady” in any particular society. Gender issues are historically intertwined with issues of race and class in American social and cultural history. Gender is public performance for which society rewards or punishes individuals based on a historically shifting set of social norms. For the purposes of this discussion, the term gender will include gender orientation as in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered people.
NATIONALITY
Nationality is a political description of place of birth or naturalization.
In addition there are some concepts that are useful in the discussion of American social and cultural history.
PUSH FACTOR
Push factors cause individuals or groups to relocate from one place to another.
PULL FACTOR
Pull factors draw individuals or groups to a specific location.
DIASPORA
Diaspora refers to the (often forced) dispersal of populations from a specific location to several locations throughout the world.
IMMIGRATION
Immigrants are individuals or groups that come into a place.
EMIGRATION
Emigrants are individuals or groups that leave from a place.
IN-MIGRATION
In-migrants are individuals or groups that move from one place to another within a country, state, or nation.
SOJOURNER
A sojourner is a person (or persons) who crosses regional or national boundaries (frequently for social and economic benefit) with specific intent to return to their place of origin.
REFUGEE
A person or group of people fleeing from specific organized social systems of oppression, war, and/or genocide, and seeking sanctuary outside the political reach of those systems.
*The American obsession with race and racism is a historic artifact of the society. The suffix “ism”, added to almost any word suggests the ability or desire to exercise influence, control or power - race as a metaphor in the finest sense of Joseph Campbell.
ON DIVERSITY
While there is no finite definition of cultural or ethnic diversity, this text uses the classifications of ethnicity developed at University of California at Berkeley for their utility and discreetness. U C Berkeley’s American Cultures Department identifies Indigenous Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latin Americans as the five essential cultural groups in U.S. history. Important to remember when looking at these five ethnic groups is the stunning amount of cultural diversity within each group.
Diversity becomes most important in history as the complex interaction between groups, their culture and American social institutions. At each coming together of an immigrant or indigenous group and American formal and informal social institutions, a transformation of both has occurred. These social transformations have continually remade America.
Most people’s understanding of diversity is couched solely in ethnic terms. This is not a satisfactory definition. Under the question “what is diversity?” it is more useful to consider:
* ideology * religion * social-economic class * gender * gender orientation * disability * culture * ethnicity * political principles * educational background * age * language & dialect * learning styles * intellectual opinion * visceral response & individual temperament * personal experience…and the list is legion.
Diversity then, is both social and cultural fact and biologic fiction. In the rest of the text, look for the five groups recognized by UC Berkeley, and the range of diversity within those groups.
The entire relevant reason for the study of history and for the ongoing investigation of the human adventure is intellectual activism and social transformation. This is a cross-cultural comparative approach that tracks change through time. This anthology of time, change and culture will evolve in two stages. The first is a chronological historical presentation of documents, essays, and accounts that make up formal and informal American social institutions and the American ideal. The second section examines American realities through manifestations of American cultural diversity. Five of the cultural diversity segments are ethnically centered, while the final two investigate class and gender.
Be advised that there are many, many aspects of the American social and cultural history that are not directly addressed. Concepts of assimilation and acculturation are set aside to focus instead on the interactions between culture, the individual, and society. There are no topical discussions of technology, or drugs, or abortion, or a host of other aspects of American society and culture. But, there are concepts and principles of investigation that are applicable to those and many more facets of American society and culture. This is the beginning of a process of critical thought to be applied to any, and every, area of inquiry.
……But, on the other hand, there is the idea called “freedom”. At the center of all questions in a free society stands the individual need for identity and self-determination.
This book investigates the question of why so much social disparity exists between different ethnic and cultural groups in American history. By extension, what is looked for here is why such differences of opportunity persist. The results that are sought in writing this book involve what to do about the future of individual, cultural, and ethnic diversity in the United States of America. Identifications of race persist as different from definitions of American. Regardless of the benefits, the historic costs of inclusion in that definition are variable. Gender and social class are perpetually contentious issues, but even more central is the relationship of cultural diversity to American social institutions. Why and how do cultural diversity and social institutions mutually effect each other, and what are the practical results of social change? This is the heart of the role of the individual in society. People are concerned about how to better their condition. Therefore, any historic examination of American society and culture should be aimed at activism and social transformation.
History as a discipline has its own set of contexts. At times history has served to legitimize nationalism, colonialism, slavery, genocide, sexism, class-ism, and other identities of power and privilege. Only relatively recently have revisionist historians moved to a premise of intellectual activism and social transformation. Applied social science was the result. The concept that the skills and knowledge of social sciences had applications for the solution of human problems meant a new commitment to social responsibility. Post revisionists of the last few decades have drifted away from the sometimes strident and occasionally exclusionary excesses of the early revisionists. However, an additional casualty of attempts at a balanced approach has been the commitment to activism and social transformation. This anthology attempts both a balanced portrayal of American society and culture, while also strongly advocating intellectual activism as a tool toward social transformation.
An anthology, such as this, can offer balance by providing for original voices to be heard on their own terms. Each document is “as is” – in the spelling, grammar and idiom of the original writers. To be sure, as in American history, each inclusion occurs at the exclusion of others, partly as a concession to space. However, each inclusion represents the beginnings of a dialog in which the reader is invited to participate. And, each article or document has been selected to include the widest range of cultural and social input. Efforts toward activism and social transformation require critical thought to be based on broad sources of information. But, also the tools of critical thought themselves must be sharpened toward the challenges of the future. These intellectual tools are a major feature of this anthology. Intellectual activism is a process of interactive education implying thought and deed. It is not enough to simply reflect. Nor is thoughtless action productive of social transformation. Applied social science requires participation in a process of both critical thought and socially responsible action. This anthology invites the reader to use the articles and documents interactively with each other and with the exercises in critical thought as the beginnings of a process of activism and social transformation.
At the nexus of these social and cultural questions of American history is the concept of identity. Cultural identity is a prime source of personal authority and self-determination. In a social context, identity forms the basis for power and privilege. From where does an individual identity originate? How is identity perpetuated? How is it shared? To what degree can there really be a national identity, whether it be considered social, cultural, or ethnic? Because if identity cannot be shared equally by all members of a Nation, then to what degree can the Nation expect individuals to participate in the common goal that Nationality represents? If you are non-white, an immigrant, a woman, gay or lesbian, disabled, or a host of other institutionally defined diverse groups, the question simply put becomes, what’s in it for me? Historically and presently, the answer has been shades of “less than” or “nothing.”
We are all looking at a twenty-first century world, with twenty-first century problems that must be faced collectively. A century ago, the sense of collective commitment to a clearer set of common goals was based on an even narrower concept of American identity. At that time, far more diverse elements of American society were optimistic about their ability to become American and share fully in that collective identity. Now, a century later, many of those illusions have been shattered. We are a melting pot that didn’t. Many cultural groups have found their access to the American dream to be socially limited by sets of formal and informal institutions. Yet people still come to America. Why, and what can we do to preserve individual, cultural opportunity while sharing in the social commitment of national identity is the subject of this book.
Born here, I have lived in this United States of America, as a marginalized citizen preoccupied with the question why. My cultural and ethnic identity has sustained me even as my social identity has been redefined, largely by institutional forces beyond my control. I have lived long enough to be colored, Negro, Black, Afro-American (a hair style), and African-American. I am often asked – quite genuinely – why I am not satisfied with simply being an American. This is because while the above names were labels put on me by formal government institutions, other, more informal labels like coon, jig, Nigger, jungle bunny, spear chucker, and Alabama porch monkey, were consistent reminders of my otherness. To me, the Confederate flag – the “stars and bars” still popular in many parts of the U.S. – can never be a symbol of anything but a history of hate. More recently, I have been labeled an urban problem, an ethnic minority, a member of an underrepresented group, a member of an over-entitled group, and so on. I am not satisfied with being simply an American because rarely am I treated simply as an American, much less as an individual. I become, instead, an object, interchangeable with others of my type.
But, where I have been marginalized socially, I have thrived culturally, and ethnically. At times when I am reminded of my inability to share purely in the social identity of American, my sanctuary has been my cultural and ethnic identity. There is great strength in separateness, but it is the strength of a person or a people, not the strength of a Nation. Many like me, who see their identity as an American to be less than that of others, feel denied. Each of us has something powerful to contribute. In being denied full American identity, many will deny America the individual and collective power of their diversity. America, in denying us will eventually lose the value of our potential. Who and what an American is results from the individuals position between personal culture and the institutions of society. This book is about the value and persistence of diversity. It was written for we who will not deny ourselves and who still struggle to be American in a Nation that often denies us. And, this book was written for those who still ask why I am not satisfied with simply being an American.
INTRODUCTION
AMERICAN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL HISTORY
American history is a history of diversity. It is an ongoing social and cultural experiment involving those who consider themselves indigenous with they who are considered immigrant. This cultural synthesis is controlled by social institutions that themselves must evolve in response to the possible inclusion of the other, the newcomer, the outsider. Ever since Europeans have used the name America, there have been problems of inclusion, and exclusion. But, who is an American? The consistent denial by original European immigrants of a role for either indigenous Native Americans or imported Africans in the American experience was just a beginning. Gender, religion, and class joined ethnicity as reasons for exclusion from the society and culture of power and privilege that were, and are fundamental to American identity. American history is the story of the struggles for inclusion, identity, and self-determination. Individuals and groups continued contributing, and demanding a part in a national cultural identity, regardless being of marginal social status.
A new American society and culture was formed and reformed as colony expanded into nation, and nation into world power. At each historic juncture – each point in time – America has redefined both its culture and social institutions based on who was encountered, embraced, or denied. Since the Declaration of Independence, American culture and society has been philosophically based on freedom and self-determination. Yet, when economic and political leaders sat down to form the philosophies of revolution into the formal institutions of society, the Constitution that was produced was a document of exclusion. Social institutions of the new United States of America placed clear limits on inclusion of diversity in the culture of the United States of America. “We the people” meant the class of wealthy White male property owners, who for the most part were products of the Protestant faith, if not ethic. Outside of Constitution Hall, America was always a rainbow of diversity. The Nation encompassed (if not embraced) men and women of a wide variety of cultural and ethnic origins, bringing a diversity of aspirations and aptitudes. It becomes far more relevant to ask not what American Culture is, but to ask what does it mean to be an American.
Just as the formal institutions of the United States governed the opportunities of the diverse American cultures, so also did the informal institutions of America impose limits. In the end, many individuals found personally cultivated networks of culture to be the foundation of opportunity. For those unmentioned, overlooked, or expressly denied by the formal and informal social institutions of the United States of America, culture was (and sometimes still is) the sole basis for opportunity.
American history and thus American social identity has mostly been the product of the same institutional influences of power and privilege. In the earliest incarnations, U.S history was the written record made by the class of wealthy White male property owning Protestants. It should not be surprising that this record, like the Constitution, served primarily its authors. Fortified with both a clearly defined social role of power and privilege linked to a clearly articulated cultural identity infused with a sense of superiority, it is no wonder that the Nation and the discipline of history have remained controlled by a few instead of the many. In recent times, however, new interpretations of history have significantly revised the discipline and broadened the definition of American identity. The most significant aspect of revisionist history is an inclusive quality that enriches the range of human possibility.
Just what it means to be an American for many – such as myself – is still a question without a satisfactory answer. Who I am is part the result of the past. This cultural identity is in layers, personal, familial, and ethnically historic. However, a portion of my identity is the product of who I am seen to be. This social identity is composed of how formal and informal institutions characterize me. My full identity as an American results from the options I exercise between the two. My identity as an American is both social and cultural. To be an American is to have many options and many limitations. America’s past, present and future histories are the results of those who employ the most of the options against limitation.
This is a fundamentally American expression in culture and character.
This anthology is interdisciplinary, because the real world is. This text is multicultural, because the real world is. This book takes the position that intellectual activity must result in activism, because that is how the real people change the real world for the better. Social transformation does not just happen mysteriously through luck, but must be the result of work. And, for a society to be a success by any criteria, it must actively embrace the efforts of all diverse individual resources. This is an American social and cultural history anthology. However, history means nothing unless it serves individuals in the context of society.
American history is defined by the relationship between society and culture – between institutions and individuals. American society is defined by its institutions. Culture in American history is defined by individuals, some real, some totally imagined, most a blend of the two. Almost all of the individuals who have been used by historians to define American culture in history books have been male and white. Based on these examples, American culture is often considered to be a relatively uniform and nationally shared phenomenon from which sub-cultures may deviate, but nevertheless orbit. This is a trick of perspective, and a curse on multicultural studies. The word “sub-cultures” itself, like “minorities” suggests inferior status. American institutions treat individuals as if they represent groups. Culture, in the most basic analysis, is the fundamental set of conscious and unconscious assumptions that govern an individual persons set of responses to the environment. For people, the environment is largely made of the formal and informal social institutions structured to govern our collective group behavior. And here is the trick of perspective. Any shared American culture must result from individual responses to collective institutions. And our social institutions evolve through interactions with individuals. We remain individual, but necessarily must each respond to similar institutions. Culture serves the individual. Society serves groups. This interplay between social institutions and individual culture produces the events of American history.
This text is an interdisciplinary experience into American social, cultural, and ethnic history. Readings and documents are drawn from many sources in the making of this text. Although this is primarily a history book, many disciplines contribute to its wholeness. Scholarly authors are found alongside literary giants or government officials. Heroes, poets, and common people share their perspectives next to political activists and academics. This is important. What we in the United States call America and American history is really the written account of many. Like on the dollar bill: E Pluribus Unum – the many into one, a kind of plural unity. If you ask a Guatemalan, a Canadian, or a Brazilian what they would call themselves other than those national political titles, they would call themselves Americans – North, South, and Central -- but still Americans. So too within the United States, the answers to what it means to be an American differs. It may be Italian, or Lakota, Basque, or African, Mexican, or Japanese, Dine, Filipino, or Irish -- all hyphenated Americans. Fear not, there is a clear answer to the question of what it means to be an American. The issue is that there are many voices answering. Some of the voices are from the past, but all speak to a continuing future as Americans. Some voices have been heard over others. Some have scarcely been heard at all. Yet all are significant in the making of American society and culture.
Just as there can be no single answer to the question of what it means to be an American, so too there can be no single way of seeking that answer. Instead, there are many disciplines, many cultures, and many people. There are probably hundreds of thousands of particular names, dates, and events in American history. In fact, there are far, far too many particulars for any investigator or text to encompass. The only reasonable course is to learn concepts instead of raw rambling totals of fact. History is a chain of causes and effects and not just names, dates, and events. Looking at history as a process generates problem-solving skills that are valuable to students and citizens. By examining historic limitations and opportunities for social and cultural change, the processes influencing present and future events becomes clearer, and sets of possibilities revealed. This is an issue oriented applied approach of intellectual activism. In this way, new facts can be critically analyzed as they arise. The individual in American society becomes more powerful in a number of ways and for a number of purposes.
Exercises and selections in this interdisciplinary anthology are conceptual doorways to intellectual activism and critical thought. It is not so important what you know as it is the many ways you can know.
The theoretical orientations of this anthology come primarily from methodologies of both history and anthropology. A theoretical orientation is a point of view that provides the intellectual tools for problem solving. Theoretical orientations become vantage points from which American society and culture can be viewed. Observations will inevitably lead to judgments. Clear criteria for judgment must be set. Interdisciplinary sets of criteria – or theoretical orientations – insure an inclusive interpretation of American history. Historical and anthropological theory provides the interdisciplinary criteria for these analyses of American society and culture.
Institutions of American society have suffered from short-term perspectives that deliver short term and often ultimately ineffective solutions. We study history because all that is now has a history, and all that is now will become history. We exist now and historically as cultural beings. Our foremost tool is culture. Culture has been our way of dealing with the natural environment for so long that we exist, thrive, and prosper mostly through cultural and social behavior. Foremost among human intellectual tools for analyzing culture is the discipline of anthropology. Theoretical orientations in this text will shift between those of history and anthropology as needed.
Adopting a historical perspective proves valuable because what American culture is now, is not what it was, or what it will become. History means change over time. What it has meant to be (or to become) an American is a matter of historic context and interpretation of significance. In the late 1960s an evenings’ dinner option for “average” Americans would never have included the possibility of a Vietnamese restaurant. Americans were killing and being killed by those people. One hundred years ago, the Monica Lewinsky affair would have made little impact on an American president. And because press of earlier eras mostly turned a blind eye to such things private presidential affairs usually had even less impact on the American people. Dr. King, the Kennedys, Waco, Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, The Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, 9/11, Operation Iraqi Freedom and the list goes on…The fundamental understanding of the American identity has – and continues to be – forever changed by such historic events.
And historian’s perspectives vary. Each cloaks their interpretation of the meaning of the facts with the mantle of academic certainty, but many accounts are just that – interpretations. We rely as heavily as possible on original written sources of information – on primary source documents. Those are (mostly) the facts. But, history is only the partial written account of past events. All events were not rigorously recorded. Of the events that were, first person (original source) accounts often differ - sometimes dramatically - from one another. Rarely do two people see the same thing in the same way. Each eyewitness has a different perspective, as well as an individual background, and a different interpretation of events. Add to this the interpretations of historical significance of facts rendered secondarily by distant and supposedly objective scholars, who themselves are not without an agenda…well, you see. Though we must strive for it, total objectivity is a sham and a physical impossibility. To understand this is essential to the realization of the effects of history on culture. But it is also fundamental to deciphering the effects of culture on history. Historians are people, and as such are products of our own history and culture. Bound by our own time and beliefs, we cannot help from investing ourselves in our work. Always, it is like the old story about the three blind men describing the elephant. We never know it was gray.
The best that can humanly be done is to compare subjective realities to approximate objective reality. This is the interdisciplinary approach. This is where anthropology comes in. Anthropologists investigate and compare cultures. Like historians, anthropologists are human; however anthropologists are also involved in a discipline that consistently makes them aware of cultural influences on objectivity. At the core of anthropological inquiry rests a multidisciplinary assumption. The idea – or theoretical orientation – that there are many valuable tools available from the diverse perspectives of human inquiry. Human experience is far too complex to be evaluated on the basis of one situation, motivation, or event. A diverse amount of disciplines must be brought to bear on any individual or historic context. Anthropology fills that need to explain the “Why?” of the human social & cultural adventure. Art, biology, technology, philosophy, theology, and many more disciplines are tools to investigate any subject. Anthropologists are by training, education and experience, interdisciplinary thinkers. This theoretical orientation is comparative and integrative. Even the most cursory observations of America reveal a wide range of influences affecting American culture and society. Apart from fairly overt particulars of historical events, there is an ever subtle and often more complex cultural dynamic to American life. There are the questions: Why and How? Anthropology is adept at asking the kinds of questions that produces answers explaining why America is the way it is – of why and how we became who we are – and of who we are likely to become.
Anthropology also offers a key model for investigating the question of what it means to be an American. Cultural anthropology has within it a spirited debate over what influences social and cultural change the most. This argument can be summed up by the statement: “nature versus nurture.” On one hand, we are the products of our background – our nature – and those influences determine our reality. On the other hand, we are the result of our environment – of how we are nurtured – and we can learn to be anything we want. It is clear that both influences are important factors. The disagreement is over which influence determines our behavior. If we apply these concepts to society and culture, we may have one of the foremost tools for understanding what it means to be an American. Are we who we are because of our social background (nature), or are we who we are because of what we cultivate through culture (nurture)? In this book, it is the interplay between the nature of society versus the nurturing influence of culture that produces what it means to be an American.
What American anthropology has missed is the concept from history that events which have transpired have done so from within their own temporal context. That persons, places, and things were at one moment in time the unique creations of human agency. History recognizes the moment of decision. The moment when through intimidation or inspiration, the individual decides on change or decides to resist change. History is change over time. Any historic moment in time has its own context that makes it unique and human. Persons who viewed places and took note of things from their own perspectives acted creatively or otherwise in specific ways and generating specific events in time. But historians often wear only one set of glasses and seek single sets of causes for events.
What history has often missed is the anthropological concept that there are many senses to be used in deciding what something is, or why and how it became that way. It is often absurd and always entertaining to the average citizen that a “nationalist” historian will argue so strongly against the view of, say a “revisionist” historian. It is clear to the average citizen that nationalism has its place among many aspects of daily life and that (maybe all) history is in need of some revision.
Anthropology’s interdisciplinary network approach and history’s cause-action-effect linear approach balance and invigorate one another. The failures and successes of human history studied from the anthropological realizations of why those events may have occurred provide the intellectual tools/weapons for social transformation and activism.
The challenge is to cultivate a community of learning that embraces as much as possible of the human/American experience. To generate a new eclectic renaissance perspective that operates in fluid process, and is not overly mired in static particulars. It is the type of liberal arts education that is fit for the twenty-first century. The accelerated and potentially volatile nature of current American society demands the cultivation of a broad understanding of cultural reality and social diversity. On the individual level, the social goal is to build an organic network of opportunities, clearly understanding the functions and potential dysfunction(s) of American society. Many purely academic traditions are static and artificially isolate subject matter that must be integrated and active in real world environments. Like the many inventions that historically went into the development of a modern automobile. If we consider the parts separately, and in isolation, it’s nearly impossible to tell how they unite to get you down the road. In social science, an interdisciplinary approach develops an individual’s skill at cultivating an understanding of how to influence their situation in positive ways.
INTELLECTUAL ACTIVISM, SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION,
& SELF-DETERMINATION
The central emphasis here is critical thought, intellectual activism, and social transformation. The idea that society can improve through planned concerted social action. This is not a new concept. The political philosophy: “of, by, and for the people” is the foundation of American social institutions. The idea that democracy should be in balance with federal and republican principles for the betterment of all is still progressive intellectual currency. Democracy is still radical. But, the belief that government should work for the citizen (or at least stay out of the way) is a major historic social transformation that is in large part responsible for birthing a common American culture. America – before and since it was called that – has always been about social transformation.
It may well be central to the human cultural experience that we seek, collectively and individually, to better our lot. But, it must be asked: from the limitations of what (cultural or social) perspective? By what criteria do we evaluate ourselves? Intellectual activism is thought interacting with deed. It means a process of individual and collective self-evaluation. Differing concepts of progress and what is better for the common good are set against equally variable and diverse visions of individual good. Sometimes American social transformations have been the result of intellectual activism. Most often they have not. Historically in America, moral relativism in its excess gives way to cultural absolutism, only to see excess absolutism to retreat, in turn before relativism. A socially active role requires equilibrium. Critical thought is the primary form of balanced intellectual activism. Honest and ongoing self-critique linked to the analysis of what is going on socially opens the door to effective intellectual activism. The stakes are the state of the human condition in America.
We could move through life “fat, dumb, and happy” as my Texas/Oklahoma grandfather would say, or we could at least try to do something about our own condition. Does history really repeat itself? Of course not. There are recurring events to be sure. But, these are symptoms of underlying social and cultural issues that have not been fully resolved. All too often, the American social response to events is reactive and focused on symptoms, not underlying or inherent causes. Responding after the fact with outpourings of concern, sympathy, or indignant outrage, bureaucratic officials representing formal social institutions pass the buck, or – if it’s an election year – throw public dollars and rhetoric at problems. Private citizens, ever focused on servicing social needs, frequently respond viscerally and reactively. Mollified, tranquilized and isolated by social/cultural circumstance, most citizens’ pursuit of intellectually active social transformation is limited. Seemingly recurring events are like coughs and fevers of an organism called America of which we are all a part. It is as if American society catches pneumonia, and is treated with cough syrup. For cancer, a band-aid. Thus many problems of a social nature persist to the point of crisis. This text is concerned with a deeper diagnosis of the health of the American condition in reference to culture and society. Intellectual activism is a proactive – not reactive – position. The Civil Rights movement, the NRA, the Feminist movement, and the Ku Klux Klan are all America. So is the Museum of Tolerance and the Southern Poverty Law Center. American history includes these and a host of quite conscious, intellectually active, and socially transformative phenomenon. Yes, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and owned slaves -- a living contradiction between culture and society. Enslaved Africans and Indian wars - we have our own holocausts.
The route of self-determination is open. Any individual can decide to change the conditions of her/his own life. Seek social transformation. Knowledge is not an ivory tower antiseptic activity of intellectual elites. Knowledge is transformative. This text involves intellectual activism and social transformation. By studying the intellectual activism and social transformations of America, new avenues of personal change and growth become realities. In American history, the individual has always been at the nexus (junction) between two realities – society and culture. Some level of conformity is an unavoidable part of a social existence. However, all things can be both limiting and enriching. Any direction mitigates or eliminates others. This is especially true of the relationship of the individual (representative of culture, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.) to society. Partly because social institutions are group oriented, the needs of the individual are discounted, overlooked, purposefully ignored. So individual identity only becomes socially effective when the individual affiliates with a group – when one becomes many. When society fails the individual, the individual relies on culture. This is why diversity in America persists. This is America. The life of the individual American is a struggle between the social demand for a single unified America and the interplay of individual diverse culture.
Anthropology centers on Culture (with a capital “C”) and human diversity. Immigration, emigration and in-migration have provided for astonishing and more than occasionally disturbing amounts of American cultural diversity. The theoretical orientations of anthropology contain the tools for analysis not only of Culture – the singular, but also of cultures – the plural. Perhaps the most significant aspects of American history have been the challenges of human diversity and human rights. Although America is clearly not a melting pot, nevertheless, out of this dynamic has come a distinct American culture, singular and unique. And because of the continuing influences of diversity in culture and society, American culture is far from static.
Always in America there has been culture(s). Apart from agency, culture and change are the consistent essential factors in the human experience. Undeniably, throughout history many geographic locations within and outside of the Americas have been host to dramatic social and cultural changes. However, the brief history of the United States of America can be seen as one of the most unique and sometimes bizarre experiments in human social and cultural diversity in any historic age. The United States of America was given birth by social and cultural diversity. America has both accepted and restricted vast amounts of immigrants from every corner of the world. Always the offer to the diverse peoples of the world was an opportunity for self-determination. Many craved the ability to undergo a social transformation, become Americans, and to improve their individual and collective conditions. Always – at least initially – the United States was to benefit also.
The social and political foundation of the United States of America is – as will be shown – intellectual activism and social transformation. The radically aggressive social institutions and cultural values of we who ethnocentrically call ourselves Americans have resulted in a historically lightning swift movement to continental, hemispherical and global significance. A peculiar facet of the American cultural and historic experience is that we assume change means progress – and that progress is always for the better. So far, many indications clearly show that we have fallen prey to fallacy. Historic data reveals change as inevitable, but progress requires copious quantities of vision and effort. A whole era of American Progressives met with mixed success partly because of such unquestioned assumptions. Intellectual activism continually requires analytic self-assessment. One need only examine the headlines to see that we have not always changed for the better. If we as Americans are going to unavoidably change, then we owe it to those who come after us – to the victims of our progress – to get it right.
Anthropologic research has demonstrated that cultural (and biologic) diversity may well provide for the widest range of opportunities for survival and prosperity. Cultural and individual diversity (AKA freedom) offer the broadest possible base for positive social change. However, America’s history of social intolerance to diversity and cultural difference has also become one of the single greatest potential threats to the prosperity of the Nation (and perhaps human survival as a species). This is especially true in the case of the American failure to celebrate (not just tolerate) ethnic diversity. We have created social institutions to control our prosperity. Many of those institutions also have controlled the specific prosperity of select groups of our society as a whole. American institutions treat diverse groups differently. There is institutional racism. Gender, class, ethnicity, nationality, and culture have all become reasons for formal and informal discrimination. Human potential becomes limited when social institutions fail to celebrate diversity. American potential is denied when American institutions limit the contributions of cultural diversity. The richness and vitality of what it means to be an American is rendered bland and colorless. All Americans suffer the loss of opportunities to survive and thrive when any single aspect of American culture is denied. Each stereotype dehumanizes us all.
Between ethnic groups in the United States, there continues to be fear, oppression, and violence based on the American mythology of racism. Class conflict is a reality. Gender and age discrimination thrives. And then, consider the relationship between the Nations of the world. No need to reference any specific headline, the nature and frequency of incident guarantees the reader my example.
“Just because that’s the way it is” was the perennially disappointing answer I would get. You see, I was one of those annoying kids that kept asking why. Then, when I got an answer, my response would usually be: “but why?” Why do people get scared? Why are there poor people? Why is there war? Why do some people that I don’t even know like (or dislike) me just because of the way I look, dress, or act? There was never a satisfactory answer. I continue asking. I have added such questions as how? or when?, and others. As an older annoying kid, I realize that there is no one answer. We lump our reasons why together. Glib and trite reasons under the umbrellas of culture, society, race, class, gender, and a host of other abstract groupings are used to explain individual circumstances. At a point, they are no more informative than “just because that’s the way it is” was. Though we are part of groups, we are not stereotypic representatives of our group. Group answers to individual questions are more than imprecise conveniences. These group answers become shared perspectives. While the ultimate reality is that we are all individuals, our social institutions are group institutions. The truth of the human (American) situation is that individual problems, goals, aspirations, and assets are shared through social context. We thrive as individuals by being organized socially. We are all in this together.
But, on the other hand, We are all in this alone. There is the idea called “freedom”. At the center of all questions stands the individual need for identity, self-worth, and self-determination. When balanced against the day-to-day social realities of American power and privilege, the cultivation of individual culture often becomes the sole bulwark for survival.
Herein lays a certain responsibility. It is the responsibility of the one to the many, and of the many to the one. Group identity works both for and against the individual. No more factious and visceral a battle cry is there than “you don’t really know how it is to be” Black, or a Woman, or Gay, or Poor. In truth, no one really knows what it is to be anyone else. American culture and society is made of elements of shared individual experience. What must not be forgotten is that what are being shared are similar, yet individual experiences.
The original documents of American social and cultural history are in conflict with many aspects of modern post revisionist, “politically correct” America. Old decisions are gone. No longer should we be “us” or “them”. The names have changed but the song remains the same. Beware. Often, the new “PC” merely trains us to demote individual genius and flawed success in favor of conformity to new dividing lines. The dynamic tension between culture and society remain, with the individual citizen at the center.
From intellectually diverse sources come metaphors for the value of diversity. Biologically, we, as a human race, exist due to our diversity. Wholeness and vitality are products of dynamic interactions between apparent contradictions. The Male principle has value only because of Female principle, and poverty only has meaning in the face of wealth. Human diversity is human potential. Our differences are enriching opportunities that drive social and cultural change. Intellectual activists see diversity of all types as sources of social transformation.
In American history, many turning points have occurred -- some for the better, some for the worse. How are better and worse to be defined? Better and worse are defined by the transformations effected in social institutions by the continuous interactions with cultures, ethnicity, gender, & class. Better is a transformation to the benefit of the lowest/weakest/most (see Thanksgiving). How to define worse? That social transformation that limits, excludes, denies, or oppresses. This is not a liberal or conservative political position. This definition of better or worse - like in a marriage - embraces self-determination – the primary sense of freedom that this nation professes to be founded upon. It is the “bottom line” of day to day existence and potential for all Americans.
What does it mean to be an American? Is it a type, a hyphen, an image, a myth, an acronym like WASPM?
ON MULTICULTURALISM & INTERDISCIPLINARY BIAS:
Moving Beyond “Tolerance”
Intellectual liberals argue for multiculturalism from a context of inclusiveness. To an intellectual liberal – a real liberal – argument and critical analysis proceeds from an assumption of minority status. The struggle is to provide a diversity of viewpoints, experiences, and solutions to human needs. Multiculturalists do not exclude or omit.
Those who label themselves intellectual conservatives and the extremists among them who fashion themselves anti multiculturalists (Bloom, Bork, Lawler, Thornton & Jacoby) argue their cases from within a context of exclusion. Conservative intellectual argument all too often proceeds from a reactionary assumption. Seeing themselves in a possible minority status, their responses are often filiopietist, threatened, and ethnocentrically defensive, if not outright reactive. Intellectual conservatism limits inquiry and denies active participation in social growth and change. Indeed, change seems to be a threat, even though – ironically – change is the only human constant. Civilizations ebb and flow away, people are born, mature, live, and die. All changes.
In seeking a balance between the unnecessary duality of the liberal versus the conservative critique, the common citizen needs a wide exposure to both concepts and situations that define and demand continuing re-definition of what human social and cultural experience embraces. While this text places itself squarely within the liberal intellectual tradition, the current state of liberal critique and pedagogy are not above objective analysis – at least as objective an analysis as is possible. Liberal intellectual critique has all too often become prey to fashion and reductionist fad. An instant rejection of all things European, Judeo-Christian, and Y chromosome does no service to broadening inclusion or deepening intellectual debate. If there is one thing that multiculturalism has shown to be true, it is that no group can realistically elevate itself by standing on the neck of others. Far too many shallow liberal analyses of intellectual conservatism see excluding conservatism as establishing liberalism. Neither of those points of view are multicultural or interdisciplinary. It must be all right to be different.
Conservative intellectual critics often assert that the academic world should hold itself aloof from activism. For them the campus should not be a proving ground for deeds, but only for thoughts. Modern conservative educators state that the academic world should be a kind of ivory tower of pure reason in which the great educators supposedly lived. (Socrates is often used as a model. This conservative pietist illusion fades when one realizes that historically Socrates died as a social activist). The cruel reality to this conservative pseudo-objective fantasy is that all deeds begin as thoughts. On a social level, it becomes absolutely essential for human prosperity to have those deed-generating thoughts and ideas to be as rational and inclusive as possible.
College and the university are some of the most socially transforming institutions of American society. They are also instruments of individual change. Conservatives and liberals both agree on this. Asserting that the goals and identity of the individual have great social value, this text places the individual and self-determination in the center of the university. The common good is never really served otherwise, only the majority or the controlling minority. History shows that (for better or worse) the lack of self-determination results in marginalization, dominance, and oppression.
Examine the dialog between intellectual conservative and liberal, both make some good points. They both overlook a host of diversity issues. Both ignore the potential brought to the table by individual diversity, focusing instead only on the collective. It is also a peculiar American irony that American culture elevates the individual, while American social institutions function only through group identity and political organization.
Interdisciplinary bias refers to this text’s theoretical orientation that historically, the many disciplines of academia -- similar to the many peoples of American society – have been kept artificially separated. As in the nature of people in real-world American society, intellectual disciplines must interrelate and co-function in order to remain vital, active, and productive.
Featuring works generated from a diversity of disciplines demands not only critical thought, but also insists on a certain intellectual activism on the part of the reader. In order to reconcile the differing disciplines represented, the reader must move beyond thought to action. In actively examining the pieces in this anthology, analyzing their relative perspectives, and evaluating their significance, the reader will unavoidably glimpse new aspects of the truths of what it means to be an American.
This evaluation invites the readers to acknowledge realities different from their own. The real challenge is to move beyond acknowledgement to tolerance. But tolerance suggests the mere suspension of discomfort in the presence of the “other”, who will be “put up with” until “normalcy” returns. The task, then, is to stride beyond tolerance, which implies distant (and distasteful) resignation to diversity, to acceptance. Accepting diversity develops the embrace of the “other” as an opportunity for growth. Advancing beyond acceptance will require casting off notions of “otherness” and separation implicit in group identities. When each individual in a social context ceases to be perceived as a representative of their group, the celebration of uniqueness occurs. People can be valued for who, not what, they are. Celebration of diversity – the final step – involves the realization of individual worth.
HISTORY, RACE, CULTURE, SOCIETY, ETHNICITY, & CLASS
DEFINITIONS
Terms like race, ethnicity, and nationality are often used interchangeably by media. Those terms as well as others by which we define ourselves are quite important. And – perhaps more seriously in the social context – terms by which others define us are frequently decisive factors in how we all get along. Labels are the center of our relationships. Individual and collective identity hinge on what we assume those terms to mean. This assumption of meaning affects everyone’s daily reality. It becomes essential to understanding ourselves socially and culturally to know what we call ourselves and why. There are the many well-known derogatory and offensive stereotypes, but what is important here are the terms that are socially acceptable and politically correct. The misuse and misunderstanding of these few key terms can and has distorted human relationships on a historic scale.
HISTORY
History is the incomplete written record or oral tradition of the experiences of humans through the contexts of time. While there are many types of history – such as political, economic, technological, or social history – all are dependant on documents and their interpretation. History, like language, is very plastic. Historians have been both under and have cast the spell of history for various reasons and diverse ends. An important anthropological fact here is that individual historians are products of unique interactions between their predisposition and historic context (environment through time).
All of the following definitions are historically dependent. That is to say that their specifics have all changed over time depending on the factors of their historic context.
SOCIETY
A society is an artificial construction of a collection of formal and informal institutions that govern group behavior. At their best these social institutions, as instruments of order and control, seek to do the most good for the majority. This means that by their very nature, formal and informal social institutions mitigate, reject, or ignore minority concerns. This also means that social institutions are characteristically reactive. Proactive behavior in social institutions is limited by bureaucratic development. The more formal and bureaucratic the social institution, the more reactive it will be. The more bureaucratic the social institution, the more its proactive potential will be focused on self-maintenance and defense. This appears to be a progressive feature of formal social institutions.
CULTURE
Culture is the set of conscious and unconscious individual beliefs and assumptions about the way in which world works that governs individual behavior. As the word infers, culture can be the product of cultivation on the conscious level. This means that culture is plastic and changeable, organic and vital. There are many cultures. Elements of culture are both shared and personal. Culture is always ahead of social institutions (until historically recently). Although culture is not fully proactive, culture remains as the intimate and personal tool for individual day to day problem solving. As people in America confront the changing issues of life, they react through culture far more rapidly than either formal or informal social institutions can. Culture changes whether we will it or not.
COMMUNITY
Communities in America are formed from the interactions of culture and society. When individuals are united into groups by complimentary internal (cultural) and external (social) influences, the groups of people can be identified as communities. Such a group of people who share common assumptions about the way the world works, and who are identified within a social context, need not be physically in contact, or segregated in order to feel a sense of community. Always, very few members of such a group share every aspect of cultural belief, or of social role. Commonalities exist, but members of a community retain individuality.
(Note: Keep in mind that the verb: govern, implies both the promotion and limitation of freedom.)
RACE
Biologically, there is only one race – human. All other categories of race are artificial social constructs of classification based on visual differences, cultural expressions, political necessity, and economic priority. What is commonly called race is really racism. The history of the concept of race parallels the development of the American identity. The hierarchical classification of the ethnicities of the world is a by-product of the same European intellectual influences that generated colonialism in general, and the formative philosophies of the United States in particular.
RACISM (also called ethnocentrism)
Racism exists when a labeled group is disadvantaged socially based on the artificial classifications of race by another group in possession of unearned power and privilege to do so.*
ETHNICITY
Ethnicity refers to heritage or culture expressed over time. The cultural history of a group of people produces differences in populations that give rise – both culturally and biologically – to ethnicity.
CLASS
Class is the stratified level of economic opportunity within a culture or society. Class differences – differences in opportunity and access – may be based on racism, ethnicity, gender, education, age, disability or a host of other recognized group classifications.
GENDER
Gender refers to the social roles and rules of behavior attributed to biological sex. Gender is not sex, but is instead what it means to “be a man.” or to “act like a lady” in any particular society. Gender issues are historically intertwined with issues of race and class in American social and cultural history. Gender is public performance for which society rewards or punishes individuals based on a historically shifting set of social norms. For the purposes of this discussion, the term gender will include gender orientation as in the case of gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered people.
NATIONALITY
Nationality is a political description of place of birth or naturalization.
In addition there are some concepts that are useful in the discussion of American social and cultural history.
PUSH FACTOR
Push factors cause individuals or groups to relocate from one place to another.
PULL FACTOR
Pull factors draw individuals or groups to a specific location.
DIASPORA
Diaspora refers to the (often forced) dispersal of populations from a specific location to several locations throughout the world.
IMMIGRATION
Immigrants are individuals or groups that come into a place.
EMIGRATION
Emigrants are individuals or groups that leave from a place.
IN-MIGRATION
In-migrants are individuals or groups that move from one place to another within a country, state, or nation.
SOJOURNER
A sojourner is a person (or persons) who crosses regional or national boundaries (frequently for social and economic benefit) with specific intent to return to their place of origin.
REFUGEE
A person or group of people fleeing from specific organized social systems of oppression, war, and/or genocide, and seeking sanctuary outside the political reach of those systems.
*The American obsession with race and racism is a historic artifact of the society. The suffix “ism”, added to almost any word suggests the ability or desire to exercise influence, control or power - race as a metaphor in the finest sense of Joseph Campbell.
ON DIVERSITY
While there is no finite definition of cultural or ethnic diversity, this text uses the classifications of ethnicity developed at University of California at Berkeley for their utility and discreetness. U C Berkeley’s American Cultures Department identifies Indigenous Native Americans, European Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latin Americans as the five essential cultural groups in U.S. history. Important to remember when looking at these five ethnic groups is the stunning amount of cultural diversity within each group.
Diversity becomes most important in history as the complex interaction between groups, their culture and American social institutions. At each coming together of an immigrant or indigenous group and American formal and informal social institutions, a transformation of both has occurred. These social transformations have continually remade America.
Most people’s understanding of diversity is couched solely in ethnic terms. This is not a satisfactory definition. Under the question “what is diversity?” it is more useful to consider:
* ideology * religion * social-economic class * gender * gender orientation * disability * culture * ethnicity * political principles * educational background * age * language & dialect * learning styles * intellectual opinion * visceral response & individual temperament * personal experience…and the list is legion.
Diversity then, is both social and cultural fact and biologic fiction. In the rest of the text, look for the five groups recognized by UC Berkeley, and the range of diversity within those groups.
The entire relevant reason for the study of history and for the ongoing investigation of the human adventure is intellectual activism and social transformation. This is a cross-cultural comparative approach that tracks change through time. This anthology of time, change and culture will evolve in two stages. The first is a chronological historical presentation of documents, essays, and accounts that make up formal and informal American social institutions and the American ideal. The second section examines American realities through manifestations of American cultural diversity. Five of the cultural diversity segments are ethnically centered, while the final two investigate class and gender.
Be advised that there are many, many aspects of the American social and cultural history that are not directly addressed. Concepts of assimilation and acculturation are set aside to focus instead on the interactions between culture, the individual, and society. There are no topical discussions of technology, or drugs, or abortion, or a host of other aspects of American society and culture. But, there are concepts and principles of investigation that are applicable to those and many more facets of American society and culture. This is the beginning of a process of critical thought to be applied to any, and every, area of inquiry.