Gerstle’s Historiographical of Mainstream Americanism Gary Gerstle attempts to reinterpret twentieth-century American history in light of the power of race (and to a much lesser extent, or even not at all, class and gender). The American Crucible conceptualizes American liberals as well as whiteness scholars’ synthetic historiographical interpretations on mainstream Americanism like Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt- Theodore Roosevelt especially, due the author’s attention to the meaning of the liberal state and liberalism. However, above all that, Gerstle argues that inherent tensions between two powerful types of nationalism- racial and civic- have decisively shaped American history, policy-making and political debates in the twentieth …show more content…
For instance, after understanding TR’s racial inspiration, the light shines bright on how TR is the manifestation of this tension, although it is more so a mixture, between racial and civic nationalism. Likewise, TR actually makes Gerstle’s argument: “If for Karl Marx history was the history of class conflict, for Roosevelt it was the history of race conflict…” (Gerstle 17). During this time, Roosevelt brought together his racial hybrid views, which at this point, had a growing desire for an exemplary idealized American race; however, this would take a controlled integration stew of wanted races. Miraculously enough TR uses this very same recipe with the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War: “three cups of south-westerners, leavening tablespoons of Ivy Leaguers and Indians, and a sprinkling of Jews, Irish, Italians, and Scandinavians yielded, in Roosevelt’s eyes, a sterling, all-American regiment” (Gerstle 28). Roosevelt is also a very devoted individual in regards to civic nationalism; Gerstle uses Michael Ignatieff’s words to explain how TR would visualize the nation “as a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values” (Gerstle 45). However, this is when the irony comes into play. At times, TR’s ideas or speeches would sometimes contradict his …show more content…
Franklin Delano Roosevelt takes office four years later with an understanding that he has to somehow reestablish the morale of the nation as a whole. The actions FDR takes to bring back economic prosperity all starts with “…an experiment in state building without precedent” (Gerstle 128). FDR knows that he needs to continue in the footsteps of what TR did and Gerstle even gives some notice to the amount he is actually able to authorize. The most prevalent is the government’s huge contribution to jumpstarting the American economy, since up to this point in time, the government tried to stay out of the regulation the economy; however, this forever will change that. Gerstle argues that FDR was successful and he supports his claim by giving a hypothetical speculation on if he was viewed as successful in the eyes of Theodore Roosevelt. Gerstle also relates FDR’s New Deal back to his thesis by saying how it “… shaped the civic nationalism of those years” (Gerstle 130). FDR, as well as TR, share a very important view point that Gerstle makes clear: they both have the same standpoint on racial hybridity. One of the most important parts of is how much influence TR’s New Nationalism had on FDR’s New Deal. This is a turning point in American history because it brings back the war mobilization of TR, since “FDR
The ability for people to look at a situation from a different perspective is vital in today’s globalized society. Diversity is the most important core attribute we share that gives us a new perspective to assess situations differently through our diverse backgrounds and upbringings. Unlike Patrick J. Buchanan’s argument in his essay titled “Deconstructing America,” diversity is not a burden, but rather a necessity in America’s culture. Conversely, Fredrickson 's essay titled, “Models of American Ethnic Relations: A Historical Perspective,” illustrated a more precise version of American history that disproves Buchanan’s ethnocentric ideologies. Buchanan speaks of diversity as a narrow, one-way street. The imprecise interpretations of history
During the process of reading this compilation of works, Portrait of America, many different point of views were aired. The opinion or attitude on the subject was too tainted. The authors were very biased to their perception of the "story". This book could have been much more beneficial if the facts would have stayed to the straight and narrow. Only the detrimental facts needed to be applied to these chapters. For a history class, as broad as this, this book opened too many doors that could not be explained in as much detail as would be liked. Many of the authors enjoyed mentioning the most scandalous moments of the people's lives then dropped the fact without much support or follow through as to what happened to cause or end these events. Brief summaries only tease the mind, and with the course load of most students, there is hardly extra time to investigate the matter further in detail. For a class such as History 152, biographies and/or documentary style books are more worth the while of the student. For instance make a list of a selection of novels that could be read for the class, so that every student can then explore in depth what that student thinks is interesting. Although the book was teasing in nature the chapters did flow well and were easy to read. The procession of the chapters had wonderful transition as to not loose the student. While proceeding through this book there were several different reoccurring topics that appeared. This paper will discuss these two reoccurring topics: the civil rights movement and former presidents.
Carmichael views America as a system that refuses to acknowledge the issue of race in an honest fashion. Because the holders of the country’s power, Whites, have no sense of urgency in the matter, it is comfortable taking its time in addressing such “inconvenient” problems. When the current power structure leaves those at the top of it in a particularly comfortable state, the desire to make changes that would only allow for others to have equal chance to take such a seat is unlikely.
Race-thinking: what is it? Isn’t the world past the issue of race? Do races even exist and if so, what does it mean to have a racial identity? Is colorblindness possible and how important is it? These are the questions Paul Taylor addresses in the book “Race: A Philosophical Introduction”. Paul Taylor is a self-proclaimed “radical constructionist” who will maintain that race is very real in our world and in the United States as a whole (p. 80). Taylor takes care to ensure he addresses the real needs concerning racial dynamics in the U.S., referencing historical events, prevailing policy affairs, and even pop culture to explain that everyone capable of forming opinions ought to have some sort of grasp of the concept of race-thinking. As Taylor will analyze, race and race-thinking “has shaped and continues to shape private interactions as well as the largest political choices” (p. 8). In other words, race-thinking encompasses everything we do and every interaction we have. In this paper I will attempt to interpret and expound Taylor’s views and definitions of race, concepts associated with race, and input my own interpretations as they are appropriate.
America is a nation that is often glorified in textbooks as a nation of freedom, yet history shows a different, more radical viewpoint. In Howard Zinn’s A People's History of the United States, we take a look at American history through a different lens, one that is not focused on over glorifying our history, but giving us history through the eyes of the people. “This is a nation of inconsistencies”, as so eloquently put by Mary Elizabeth Lease highlights a nation of people who exploited and sought to keep down those who they saw as inferior, reminding us of more than just one view on a nation’s history, especially from people and a gender who have not had an easy ride.
...y new ideas, presidents after him felt they had a lot to live up to. Franklin D. Roosevelt “cast a long shadow on successors” with his New Deal program. Conservatives were constantly worried about the loss of their capitalist economy, but it is possible that Roosevelt’s greatest New Deal achievement is the fact he never allowed America to completely abandon democracy or turn to socialism or communism. Many New Deal programs fixed economic problems but did not completely solve social ones surrounding equality and discrimination. New Deal programs took radical steps while moving toward government regulation and intervention causing conservatives to fear concentrated power, but the steps and transformations Roosevelt made while in office preserved conservatives’ need of capitalism and democracy in government, defining the New Deal as both radical and conservative.
During the 1920’s, America was a prosperous nation going through the “Big Boom” and loving every second of it. However, this fortune didn’t last long, because with the 1930’s came a period of serious economic recession, a period called the Great Depression. By 1933, a quarter of the nation’s workers (about 40 million) were without jobs. The weekly income rate dropped from $24.76 per week in 1929 to $16.65 per week in 1933 (McElvaine, 8). After President Hoover failed to rectify the recession situation, Franklin D. Roosevelt began his term with the hopeful New Deal. In two installments, Roosevelt hoped to relieve short term suffering with the first, and redistribution of money amongst the poor with the second. Throughout these years of the depression, many Americans spoke their minds through pen and paper. Many criticized Hoover’s policies of the early Depression and praised the Roosevelts’ efforts. Each opinion about the causes and solutions of the Great Depression are based upon economic, racial and social standing in America.
In his book, A New Deal for the American People, Roger Biles analyzes the programs of the New Deal in regards to their impact on the American society as a whole. He discusses the successes and failures of the New Deal policy, and highlights the role it played in the forming of American history. He claims that the New Deal reform preserved the foundation of American federalism and represented the second American Revolution. Biles argues that despite its little reforms and un-revolutionary programs, the New Deal formed a very limited system with the creation of four stabilizers that helped to prevent another depression and balance the economy.
In this chapter the author Isenberg emphases the politic identity as force for good in last decades of the twentieth century, by finally recognizing the concerns of marginalized Americans such as people of color. For example, president Richard Nixon as a representative of politician of the time, who saw themselves as a hard-working middle class, American homeowners who paid taxes and expecting little from the federal government. According to the author poor whites who managed to climb the social ladder began to reconstruct their image. They no longer refer to themselves as a distinct breed of people but instead as a race to celebrate. According to the author, a larger trend was turning America into a more ethnically conscious nation, one in
When considering the presidents of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt is almost always associated with ideas of imperialism, progressivism, and masculinity. Bederman uses Roosevelt as the perfect example of manhood and exposes his form of racially dominant manhood. She writes, “for Roosevelt, race and gender, were inextricably intertwined with each other” (214). Evidence of this can be found in her discussion of Roosevelt’s African
FDR enters the election with a strong, but not unbeatable, hand. The measures that FDR took during his first term in the White House didn’t produce prosperity. But they were able to pull the country out of depression and made sure that millions of people were better off than they had been when he first took office (Boller, P.240). Still the economy remained sluggish and eight million Americans were without jobs. At this election, he brought out the New Deal that would help all groups and firms. By this time Roosevelt had become the center of both passionate adoration and burning hatred. With millions of Americans support he had become more popular than the New Deal itself (Boller, P.240). Critics from various points on the political spectrum such as Father Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend had spent much of the previous two years attacking the President. They supported Representative William Lemke of the newly formed Union Party in the 1936 election (American President: A Reference Resource).
On July 27, 1919, a young black man named Eugene Williams swam past an invisible line of segregation at a popular public beach on Lake Michigan, Chicago. He was stoned by several white bystanders, knocked unconscious and drowned, and his death set off one of the bloodiest riots in Chicago’s history (Shogun 96). The Chicago race riot was not the result of the incident alone. Several factors, including the economic, social and political differences between blacks and whites, the post-war atmosphere and the psychology of race relations in 1919, combined to make Chicago a prime target for this event. Although the riot was a catalyst for several short-term solutions to the racial tensions, it did little to improve race relations in the long run. It was many years before the nation truly addressed the underlying conflicts that sparked the riot of 1919. This observation is reflected in many of author James Baldwin’s essays in which he emphasizes that positive change can only occur when both races recognize the Negro as an equal among men politically, economically and socially.
James Loewen wrote the book ?Lies My Teacher Told ME? to help the students of the United States become aware of their true history. This book attempts to show how and why American history has been taught the way it has without regard for the truth. Mr. Loewen had compared twelve different history textbooks they are: The Great Republic, The American Way, Land of Promise, Rise of the American Nation, Challenge of Freedom, American Adventures, Discovering American History, The American Tradition, Life and Liberty, The United States ? A History of the Republic, Triumph of the American Nation and The American Pageant. Loewen has argued his cases for Heroification, Euorcentrism and the first settlers, and Racism in our history. He has done this knowing fully that most people do not want to know the harsh realities of our nations past. The United States has tried to maintain a positive image throughout history. Unfortunately, it has many skeletons in its closet that need to come out to heal this great nation on many levels. If the public at large new the real role of racism in our nations infancy and how men tried to pursue their way of thinking as opposed to what is good for the country they would be ashamed at what the United States has stood for in the past.
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
As one of the presidents during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt led the United States of America through a series of dramatic changes that interrupted the lives and ideologies that Americans during the time were more than familiarized with. Industrialization, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, imperialism, and “muckraking” journalism were just a few of the controversial, yet significant characteristics of this era. However, perhaps one of the largest and most vital influences during this time period came from the outside. Immigration was an issue that Roosevelt himself addressed rather perceptibly in his paper entitled “True Americanism,” which first appeared in a magazine called The Forum in April, 1894. However, it is not the idea of immigration that vexed Roosevelt; rather it was his concern and fear of the possibility that the increase in immigration of foreign people and cultures would culminate the concept of American patriotism, or “Americanism” as a whole. This paper will analyze the different elements of Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” by exploring the historical context of the document, highlighting Americanism as Roosevelt explicates it, observing the rhetoric used throughout the document, and discerning Roosevelt’s intended audience.