Chapter 9 Reflection

As I read Chapter 9, my overarching impression is that the idea I had in my mind of life in the United States during the period between 1815 and 1840 had been influenced a great deal by idealized portrayals in books, movies and plays. The fact of the matter is that life in this period, while starting to resemble some aspects of modern American life, was actually rather rough, unfair and unsettled for the majority of people.

Expansion: Growing up in the 1970s, I loved stories and movies about the Old West, "the Frontier", and all that sort of thing. I was amazed by the idea that our country was so new, especially since we celebrated the Bicentennial when I was in the 2nd grade. So much had happened in 200 years. We went from 13 colonies to 50 states! We threw off the chains of monarchy and declared our freedom!

I was thrilled to look at old maps that showed the constantly-changing borders of the United States as the country expanded Westward. I knew that there were "Indians" and that the U.S. sometimes fought with them, but in those days I had no idea of the countless ways in which Native Americans were marginalized and mistreated. I also knew that there had been slavery, but again, I had no idea of the brutality and the indignities that enslaved people suffered.

I guess in a way, I didn't think of Native Americans or black people as people in the same way that I thought of people I knew firsthand in my parents' suburban, lily-white neighborhood. I don't remember feeling dislike or prejudice toward people who were different, but I do remember thinking that they were very, very different than me. What I didn't realize as a little kid was that this worldview was directly tied to the message so popular in the period covered in Chapter 9 that "all men are created equal if they're white." It's sobering to reflect on the fact that the values my parents presented as truth were shaped by antiquated ideas so rooted in the mistreatment of large numbers of people.

Growing up, hearing about "the Land of the Free", I was ignorant that so many people had been brought here against their wills, and that others had been kicked off of their own lands and sent to other places to make room for white settlers. I did not understand that there is a permanent underclass of people who cannot get ahead in life because they fuel the economy for the wealthy. I believed that "liberty and justice for all" was a reality and that America was pretty much a perfect place. The Greatest Country on Earth and all that.

Of course, over the course of my life, I learned the truths of these injustices and inequalities, but taking this class has really made me stop and think. It's one thing to know that these different bad things happened over the course of history.  But, to see them all laid out end-to-end in the way "The Enduring Vision" does, paints a much darker picture of America than I realized it would.

I see the arrogance of something like calling one particular subset of Native Americans "The Five Civilized Tribes", because they had taken up a way of life similar to the white settlers of their day. I feel sick when I think about the "Indian Removal Act", and read the story of the "Trail of Tears." There's a good example. It's something I knew happened, and thought of as unfortunate. But I didn't realize the tragic proportions of it. Reading that one-third of the Cherokee Nation died "during or just after the removal" made my heart so heavy.

Life was no picnic for women, free black people, immigrants, the poor. I didn't know that today's custom of blaming the poor for their own poverty has roots in the 1800s. I thought that was something that was a product of our current age. It's surprising that such an old idea still holds so much influence. Reading that "in 1800...the average American woman bore 7.04 children" was shocking to me. By 1850, that number had fallen to "only 5.02 children, and 3.98 by 1900." That is a lot of children. Too many children if you ask me. It certainly doesn't square with my idea of what life was like during that period.

It strikes me as funny that these days, we have so many people decrying the decline of our American society. In a historical context, the reality of American life, especially 200 years ago, bears little resemblance to the "good old days" that our nation as a whole seems to hold dear. It's both reassuring and frustrating to know that life in America has never been perfect, and that it's never going to be perfect, even if we do live in what many people would regard as "The Greatest Country on Earth."

The 27th Amendment*

The footnote (*) about the 27th Amendment is fascinating. I had *no* idea of how this unfolded over the course of more than 200 years. If you haven't read the footnote, I encourage you to go back and do so. In a nutshell, this amendment (the content of which is almost beside the point) was proposed in 1789 but not approved by the federal legislature. However, as the footnote tells us "it contained no deadline for ratification and over the years other state legislatures voted to add it to the Constitution." Here's the crazy part: "In 1992 the Archivist of the United States certified that with the Michigan legislature's ratification the article had been approved by 3/4 of the states and thus automatically became part of the Constitution. But congressional leaders and constitutional specialists questioned whether an amendment that took 202 years to win ratification was valid, and the issue had not been resolved by the time this book went to press." EV is copyrighted in 2009 and again in 2013, so I am guessing that this question is still not resolved. But, I will do a little research and see if I can find out for sure. Check the "comments" section for updates.

The First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments + A Word on Freedom

The First, Fifth and Ninth Amendments + A Word on Freedom

Generally speaking, I am impressed by the way that the Constitution is constructed. It is an elegant document, precisely worded, and well thought-out. I particularly like the way the amendments (especially 1-10, which comprise the Bill of Rights) clarify the main document. I think that the framers gave a great deal of consideration to how the Constitution might be interpreted, and guarded against it being twisted by politicians with their own agendas. Clearly, they continued thinking about it even after the initial document was signed, continuing to fine-tune the principles laid out initially. Here are some of the things I think are most important about the Bill of Rights: 

1^st Amendment: I cannot tell you how much I love the fact that the First Amendment says flat out that there is no state religion, and that people are free to practice any religion they choose. To me, that also says that people are free to choose to practice *no* religion, but I know there are many who will disagree with that statement. In my mind, religion has no place in politics or public life. I grew up Catholic, but now consider myself atheist. I think that the Constitution affords me the right *not* to believe, and protects us all equally, no matter what we choose to believe.

  

 5^th Amendment: The Fifth Amendment says that when a person is on trial, he or she is not required to incriminate himself. This is such a brilliant legal point. If the state wants to convict someone of a crime, it’s up to them to prove it. We as citizens don’t have to help them make a case against us. This shows that the framers of the Constitution did their best to view issues from all sides, and to err on the side of protecting individuals vs protecting the government.

9^th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This is a particularly meaningful turn of phrase for me. It says (again in plain language) that it is not acceptable for one side to twist the words of the Constitution in order to limit the freedom of others. This shows great foresight, because it acknowledges the human tendency to contour words, laws, and guidelines to suit their own agendas. Just look at the way people use religion, the same words in the same books, to convey wildly different messages, based on their own beliefs and ideologies. I think the litmus test for Constitutional Amendments should be something like “does this enhance the freedom of the majority of Americans?”

As far as Freedom goes, this class has gotten me to re-examine my views on history and what it means to be free. When I was in elementary school in the 1970s, history was presented as incredibly cut-and-dried. America was “The Land of the Free”. In those days, I did not know that “All men are created equal” meant “all white men who are from Europe or whose families come from Europe. It also didn't include the men, women and children who were already living in the "New World". When I was a little kid in school, there was no discussion of how the indigenous people here were actually treated. There is quite a disconnect between the history that takes these realities into account, versus the history that just says “everyone” (including the land) was instantly free of tyranny the moment the document was signed. We are still working on full freedom for all Americans, but we are certainly moving in the right direction, towards inclusion and validation of all people. I know the Constitution isn’t perfect, but I do think it’s a huge asset to the United States, and will continue to serve us well for the foreseeable future, in spite of the fact that it was crafted by men who were products of their time.

Corporations are people, too?

This post originated as a response to Khaled's post about whether corporations, non-profits, trees or mountains could be considered people. I ended up liking what I wrote and didn't want to lose track of it, so it is copied here. Give it a read, and please comment if you like. I think the definition of personhood is an interesting topic and I welcome your thoughts:

When I was a youngster, there was a TV show called "Kids are People, Too". Every time I hear about corporations being people, it makes me want to say "Corporations are people, too!". Except that they're not, of course. Corporations are created by people, but in my opinion, they are not discrete people in and of themselves. To me, being a person means several things:

1) You have 1 (one) physical body
2) That physical body is alive (so it can't be a building)
3) That physical body has a heart, a brain, organs, blood, skin, hair,  etc, so single-celled organisms or plants don't fit the bill. Granted, animals could fit this description, but we'd have to say that to be a person, one must hail from a two-legged, two-armed species. Boom, no spiders or horses or cats as people!
4) To be a person, you must come from a species that has the facility of a human language. So, again, by this definition your dog (while adorable and absolutely a key member of the family) is not a person. Even if you like him better than some people in your family, which has certainly been my experience at times.

By more strictly defining what is human, I think most people would agree that corporations are not people. Nor are trees, cars, mountains, books, papers or cardigans.

I am surprised that the "corporations are people" ruling has lasted this long, and imagine that it cannot hold up forever. Frankly, I would much rather call my dog (or my car) a person than to call Google a person.

Link to song about US History

Here is a link to a song that I love, sung by a very young Barbra Streisand in the early 1960s. It's all about US History, and the lessons that modern Americans can take from people like Thomas Paine, Paul Revere and George Washington. It's a funny, clever song, with a great message. I hope you'll give it a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjyyLcVnN9M

(For anyone interested, the song is by Harold Rome, and is part of the musical revue "Pins and Needles")

Thomas Paine Discussion

I enjoyed our class discussion of the Thomas Paine quotes very much, especially the discussion surrounding "Time makes more converts than reason." Another quote which I liked, but we didn't get to talk about is: "Suspicion is the companion of mean souls and the bane of all good society." This is just as true today as when it was written over 200 years ago. Suspicion, generally speaking, is a negative emotion or way of looking at things. Suspicion goes hand-in-hand with insecurity. I know people who are convinced that when they walk into a room, everyone is judging them, or trash-talking them. Other people I know see plots and intrigue brewing everywhere they go. My mother was a big fan of conspiracy theories, and managed to get herself upset time and time again by obsessing over all of the things she *suspected* could be going on in government, business, and other circles of power. Suspicion, like jealousy and envy, is one of those ugly feelings that gets in peoples' heads and under their skin. It is an irritant. Suspicious-minded people seem to me to always be looking for the negative, expecting the worst from every situation. Suspicion breeds suspicion, and takes energy away from other, more useful feelings, like empathy and generosity. Suspicion is also a huge part of American politics. Negative campaign adds breed suspicion of opposing candidates and sets up senseless debates, like the one over President Obama's birth certificate. Casting suspicion on the administration or party in power is a key tactic of the party not currently in power, because the people who run campaigns know that it is something that grows and takes on a life of its own, with very little effort. It doesn't matter if the whisperings are true. If enough people are whispering, talking, or tweeting about something, it takes on a certain air of truth, just as Thomas Paine said in one of the other quotes we read: "a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right". Another spin on that is a saying I've heard many times: if people say something enough times, they start to believe it. There's a lot of truth in that.

The Enduring Vision, Chapter 4, "The Bonds of Empire"

The Enduring Vision

Chapter 4 (“The Bonds of Empire”)

     I was surprised to learn (on page 83) that James Oglethorpe was against slavery, and that slavery was initially illegal in the Georgia colony. That came as complete news to me. I had always been under the impression that slavery had never been opposed in the South. Of course, the book goes on to state that “Oglethorpe’s well-intentioned plans failed” (The Enduring Vision, p. 83) and that “in 1750 slavery became legal” (The Enduring Vision, p. 83) in the Georgia Colony. Still, it is encouraging to know that not everyone in the old days was a racist.

     When I read that “political leadership fell to a small number of wealthy families with a tradition of public service” (The Enduring Vision, p. 85) in British America, it sounded to me an apt description of some aspects of today’s political landscape. Naturally, we have a long history of rich, political families here in the U.S (the Bushes, the Reagans, the Clintons, the Kennedys, the Daly family in Chicago, etc.). In the past, I hadn’t given this much thought. But looking at U.S. history from a more global perspective has given me the chance to view our system with increased detachment. Political family dynasties are commonplace in the U.S. today. Rich people getting into politics is also something that still happens a great deal. In fact, some presidential candidates in my lifetime are people whose primary qualification for the job appears to be (at least from my point of view) family wealth or self-made fortune. I’m thinking of people like Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Meg Whitman, and of course Mitt Romney. As a side note, it is interesting to see that none of those deep-pocketed candidates actually won. It's not that they don't have a right to run, of course they do. But, the question is: how has it come about that money is at least as important as ideas when it comes to politics?

     I think it is a shame that our political system is so money-driven, and that to be a serious contender for president, a candidate has got to have immense financial backing. In American culture, children are raised to believe that they can be anything they want to be when they grow up. As inspiring as this sounds, the reality is that high political office in the U.S. is all but reserved for those who make a lifelong career out of politics, and/or those who make giant amounts of money in business (including show business) and then decide to become politicians.. It is also striking to note that it is pretty much mandatory for all candidates for high-ranking state and federal roles in the USA to profess their Christianity, as well as to appear heterosexual. For a country founded in the name of religious freedom, it just feels wrong to me that when we choose a president, or other elected officials, people care so much about the candidate’s religious affiliation and sexual orientation. I am looking forward to the day when we elect a gay, agnostic or atheist candidate to a high-ranking federal office.

 

     Change is starting to come, especially at the level of state and local government. For example, when I lived in Houston, TX in 2008, I was delighted to hear that Annise Parker had been elected as the Mayor of Houston. Parker is a lesbian who has a very supportive partner, and several children of mixed race via that same partner. Right after the election, I heard some grumbling about Mayor Parker from the arch-conservative set. Some didn't like the idea of a woman mayor. Some didn't like the idea of a lesbian woman mayor. Others didn't like the fact that her children didn't all look like her because their other mother is black. But overall, I believe most Houstonians held her in high regard. For a place that is widely seen as being insanely conservative, I give Houston kudos for being fair and voting for the person they found to be most-qualified to lead their city, even if she was a little different than previous mayors.

     Finally, I guess it is interesting to me that throughout US History, the right to participate in the political process (I mean even to vote, let alone to run for office) has been given to people in a piecemeal fashion. Previous courses I have taken in junior high school and high school did not get into the level of detail that our text does about precisely who could vote and when. Given our history so far, I'd say the US has come a long, long way toward free participation for all, at least in terms of  voting. What is odd to me is that such a large number of people choose not to vote or don't inform themselves about politics. I suppose this is the complacency of people who take for granted the right to vote, and just consider it a chore. Others may feel like their vote doesn't count, so they don't bother.  Or some people only vote when there is an issue that concerns them, I would guess. But, I do love something that my parents always used to tell my brothers and me: "if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about the government." I'll buy that.

The Enduring Vision, Chapter 3

The Enduring Vision

Chapter 3

The Salem Witchcraft Trials


     Growing up, I never really understood why the Salem Witchcraft Trials actually happened. I understood the mechanics (people accusing each other, and whipping up paranoia in a small community), but I did not understand the root causes. On page 54 of the textbook, it is explained that "2/3 of all the accusers were girls aged 11-20, and more than half...had lost one or both parents in conflicts between Indians and settlers in Maine" (The Enduring Vision, p. 54). Having raised one daughter myself, I couldn't help but be struck by this fact. These accusers were very young, and a large number of them had recently lost a father and/or a mother in a violent conflict with indigenous people. No doubt, they were confused, angry and probably a bit paranoid. 

     Furthermore, the text goes on to explain that most of the women accused of witchcraft were "middle aged wives and widows...women who had escaped the poverty and uncertainty that they [the accusers] themselves faced" (The Enduring Vision, p. 54).  The account of family members turning on other family members was heartbreaking. Imagine yourself as a teenager, turning your mother or father in to the authorities for being a witch or warlock, and having them go to jail, or even be killed. Pretty scary!

     I was never certain of the numbers of how many people were jailed and/or executed during the Salem trials, but learned from this reading that hundreds of people went to jail, and 20 were executed.  The book does not tell us the breakdown of those who were executed, but I imagine most were women. What I find particularly striking is that in Salem, women were turning on other women, rather than being oppressed by patriarchy.

     I know that the Salem residents were people of their time, and believed in things like witchcraft, but it is still hard for me to imagine how they could justify killing their own citizens based on these wild, unproven, supernatural accusations. What happened in the Salem Witch Trials is a cautionary tale for people in every time. Ordinary people turned on one another because of grief, jealousy and perhaps mental illness. They caused great suffering and loss of life to an entire community. One hopes this couldn't happen again, but fear and passion still run high in American society, so I can imagine a scenario where a small, close-knit community again turns on itself with disastrous results.