Jacobson Chapter Summary

Jacobson’s point of view is that the American Government felt that it had made a mistake in allowing all white people to become American citizens, which meant that different groups could enter and have a seemingly negative effect on the Republic, and that from 1840-1920 they worked to correct this mistake. Originally the 1790 Naturalization Law gave an “unquestioned use of the word ‘white’” which allowed all Europeans to become American citizens. At the time the American government was open to accepting everyone with the same skin tone, regardless of geographic or religious background. Non-whites were looked down upon no matter their cultural background. (Page 40) Around 1840 the American opinion was still that ‘white’ was good no matter what, but this viewpoint was soon to change. One author said in 1840 that Europeans were white, but in his 1859 postscript “the phrases ‘English race’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon race’ appear in the text for the very first time.” (Page 41) During the period of change for the term ‘white’, often people who qualified according to most people could become disqualified by associating with non-white groups. “This was precisely the case with Italians in New Orleans”. (Page 57) Jacobson used these examples and many more to describe the change over time in the feelings of both the American government and the American people about the definition of whiteness.

Classwork- Anglo Saxons

The inclusiveness of the Naturalization Law led people to redefine “white.” The 1790 Naturalization Law was too inclusive with its definition of “whiteness.” Even Benjamin Franklin argued that America, ” founded by the English, should become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of as Anglifying them” (40). There was an increasing “fragmentation and hierarchial ordering of distinct white races(now plural)”(41). The perception of whiteness to Anglo-Saxon in a racial refinement reflects the views of “half-breeds” and “primatives” (41). The naturalization law forced people to rethink their definition of being white.

Jacobson's Chapter Summary

In the first chapter, Jacobson argues that around the mid-nineteenth century the demographics of the United States changed dramatically.  Firstly, in 1847 there was 235,000 immigrant into the United States and half of those came from Ireland because of the potato famine(43).  During the 1840's over three million immigrant came to the United States from Europe alone(43).  Jacobson said, "It is against this backdrop that the history of political whiteness took shape"(43).  The high influx of immigrants from different backgrounds and cultures led to a new and every growing recipe for the American vegetable stew.

By the Stew Crew

Frederickson

This reading about ethnic relations by George Frederickson gave be a better understanding on how the white European culture automatically became the superior race. What I don’t understand is how humanitarians saw Native Americans as being similar to whites minus their savage ways. The essay states that the “Indian problem” was cultural more than racial. If that was the case shouldn’t every race been viewed that way. Every race has a different cultural background, but ultimately is similar in some way. Their effort to assimilate the Native American culture was demeaning and a way to take over cultural identity.

When white Americans were culturally reborn as Anglo Saxons, how did this change their social identity?

Though there was a scale of social evolution, I don’t understand how one race gained control over another, since each race had a different cultural background.

Why was one-way assimilation forced upon the different cultures?

“They rejected theories of social evolution that ranked cultures in relation to a universalist conception of “civilization”” (456). Since each culture was viewed differently, determining who was “civilized” or not couldn’t have been possible. This statement in the essay made me wonder how they created the universal model of civilization.

Randy's Fredrickson Analysis

The first thing that I noticed was the style of writing. This essay is a research paper. It is divided into sections, has in-text citations, and an overall feel of a research paper. We must remember this and consider it when analyzing the work. There is no direct pathos involved. It is implied between the lines when discussing the brutalities of assimilation and treatment of other races. However, much logos and ethos is involved. Included in this is a direct thesis statement, “four basic conceptions of how ethnic or racial groups should relate to each other have been predominant in the history of American thought about group relations – ethnic hierarchy, one-way assimilation, cultural pluralism, and group separatism” (450).

Fredrickson introduced an interesting idea about how different groups relate to each other and what happens when they merge. I found the section on one-way assimilation the most interesting. “The coercive efforts to ‘civilize’ Native Americans – as ‘cultural genocide’” I believe is the fundamental problem with assimilation (452). Many of the groups and individuals that assimilated did not want to but rather were forced. The Native American being forced to go to boarding schools and live on reservations with no economic potential are included in this group. Rather than having their culture mixed with the current American culture, they were stripped of what made them unique. In addition, Fredrickson states, “ African Americans were generally deemed ineligible for assimilation because of their inferiority to white ethnics” (454). For true assimilation between groups to be termed successful on many levels, no group should be excluded. I agree with Fredrickson in regards to cultural pluralism being the best form of ethnic relations. With cultural pluralism, I can imagine a unified society but also a society that has unique features in different ethnic groups. I believe the cultural diversity present would make the society seem even more civilized because the society respects other group’s traditions and cultures.

Cody Clegg's Assessment of Frederickson's Argument

I felt that Frederickson's argument was very well thought-out and well made. He raised many points in a light under which I had previously not examined the subject of racism. His methodology in organizing his argument based on key belief groups (in terms of racial and ethnic opinion) was quite brilliant, though simple. In doing so, he helped me come to some thought provoking ideas.

One interesting point that was made in his argument was about that of cultural “otherness.” Not only had I never heard this word used to describe nonwhite individuals, but I felt that it was very descriptive in terms of conveying the feeling of white supremacy. Otherness seems to have a more animal and less human connotation to it, so I felt it accurately described some feelings of racism. Frederickson also referred to Americans as being in the “American club,” which I felt could be seen as a sort of parallel between a popularity contest and white cultural exclusivity.

The difference between racism toward Native Americans and blacks was another intriguing topic of Frederickson's discussion. He claimed that Native Americans were viewed as noble savages who could be tamed and incorporated into American society after their culture was stripped away, while blacks were biologically inferior, and therefore could not be assimilated. Though I certainly don't agree with such a claim, I had never seen a direct comparison between these two different eras of racism. Furthermore, Frederickson expands his point, saying, “before the 1940s, people of color . . . were generally deemed ineligible for assimilation because of their innate inferiority to white ethnics” (454). All these ideas fell under a category that Frederickson called the One-way Assimilation Model. At the end of his argument, however, he states that the most likely method for solving race problems in America would be cultural pluralism, allowing individuals to set their own cultural identity, and I agree with his conclusion statement in full.

MultiMedia Mini Memoir

This is a outline of what each of us will do for our mini-memoir porject. Our group includes: Kevin, Thomas, Keith, and Vishnu.

Kevin-I would like to do a powerpoint with oral presentation. I will incorporate images and work on finding the most effective design and layout for the slides.

Thomas-He will use powerpoint with little oral presentation.

Keith-He will try to make a video of his memoir and incorporate images, design, and organization which are his strengths.

Vishnu-He will use powerpoint with little oral presentation.

This story also proved to be inspirational to me as a minority. Zitkala-Sa went through many hardships that as a student during the 21 century I will not encounter. Blatant racial issues are all but a thing of the past now and many of the racial stiff guidelines no longer exist. This makes me believe that the small issues that I have going through school should be easy to overcome being that minorities before me had to overcome issues that were much greater.

Eric Blackmon School girl

The School story was one that showed many parallels to the struggles that not only Indians have being in all white societies but also other races. As a child Zitkala-Sa described many of the problems that she had to go through with not only issues such as being treated differently, but also the rules that are set in placed because of cultural guidelines that are not inclusive of other races. One of these issues was when she was forced to cut her hair to be immersed in the school that she attended. To all other students this seemed normal but to her it was something that was considered embarrassing. In her society it was shameful to cut your hair and only something that “unskilled warriors” were forced to do. This cultural transition is something that many other races are forced to do when being integrated into white society. Although these differences vary from race to race it is still a huge issue that many minorities have to overcome. For whites these issues are nonexistent because the guidelines are made to fit the society in which they are involved but for others it is something that is not only embarrassing but also painful sometimes to overcome.

Kevin Berman's thoughts of The School Days of an Indian Girl

First I thought it was interesting about how Gertrude's mom just let let her daughter go to the apple orchards, without putting much of a fight. I know if I were in her shoes and knew what the apple orchards were and how my son or daughter would lose their innocence if they went, then I would not let them go to go.
Also I was interested in how important Gertrude's hair was to her. She made it clear that her hair was not going be cut by any teachers. It was ludicrous how the teachers dragged her out of her room and tied her up to chair. This is a great example though of clashing cultures, because the Quakers have a tradition of cutting their hair short, but for Native Americans cutting their is a symbol of shame or mourning. So in the end you have to see where both sides are coming from because everybody has their own opinions and come from different backgrounds and its these backgrounds influence their opinions.
In addition to this I found it interesting how when Gertrude went back to her home she felt so alienated from society. I couldn't believe that after just 4 years she lost all of her heritage and how her family just disregarded her.
I was also really impressed on how Gertrude won the Indiana State Oratorical Contest. However, what really surprised me was how hostile the crowd was. Not only did they make racist comments behind her back, but also they waved flags around with racial slurs and other derogatory sayings.
All in all this was a really eye opening reading for and taught me a lot about different cultures and we need to look at different situations through different shoes.

Adam Perez Blog Post

School Days of an Indian Girl is a piece that describes how many young Native Americans felt when Indian boarding schools started. They begin very angry because they were being taken from their homes that they felt so comfortable around to a new place where their native language is prohibited from being spoken. I can't imagine how that would feel. The only slight bit of comfort they have is that they are not alone, but at the same time this can be harmful. Zitkala-Sa spoke of how one of her friends died due to the ignorance of the health of the Indians. She was at her death bed as she passed. At her young age I can't even begin to fathom how painful this would feel. This was supposed to be a school where the Native Americans become more “American”. With further research I realized that this was a common occurrence at many of the schools. The schools would have graves with hundreds of young Indians that perished before adulthood. Eventually after Zitkala-Sa tried to get revenge on the white people for everything they've done to her, she gave up. After receiving her diploma she wished to go to college. Before she wished to be with her family and live her life according to traditional Native American ways, now she wants to go to college and become more “American” while retaining her old roots back to her home. I don't like how her mother tried to prevent her from doing this. Its possible to tell by the tone of her voice that Zitkala-Sa felt divided between the two cultures. She went on into college with some success in winning the oratorical contest at the local and state level, but she never did feel truly accomplished because of the lack of the support from her mother. I wish that the author continued to write more about her experience through the rest of college and of the separated relationship with her mother. It leaves the reader to ponder about what happened from there. I personally believe that her mother probably felt the same way about it until her daughter returned to her(assuming she does return to her after her studies are complete).

Be American and The School Days of an Indian Girl

Bulosan’s Be American describes the struggles that Consorcio faced as a foreigner in America. I found the events in this story to be interesting and inspirational yet so concise that the significance of the message got lost in the narration. For example, little detail is given of Consorcio’s daily struggles as an aspiring American citizen. Also, the narrator does not describe why Consorcio wants to become an American citizen in the first place. To the reader, Consorcio’s desire to become an American seems spontaneous because little insight is given on Consorcio’s beliefs and thoughts. However the story’s rapid pace starts to slow down towards the end. The last two paragraphs of the narration put emphasis on the idea that Consorcio finally becomes an American after his death. His death symbolizes his legend as an achiever of the American Dream. Consorcio has a humble beginning but eventually overcomes obstacles and becomes a citizen not only physically on paperwork but also mentally with his tenacious mentality.

The School Days of an Indian Girl tells the story of Zitkala-Sa as a young Indian girl assimilating into a Christian lifestyle. However, unlike Bulosan’s Be American, Zitkala-Sa goes into great detail of the struggles that she faced throughout her childhood. For example, she could not speak English and as a result was confused about her cultural identity. Zitkala-Sa makes these emotions clear in her autobiography, allowing the reader to know exactly what she was thinking and thereby also allowing the reader to understand the reasoning behind some of her actions. Towards the end of the autobiography for example, Zitkala-Sa is torn between her Indian culture and her newly acquired Christian culture. She goes into a detailed description of her feeling of rebellion and visions of her mother’s revenge. I found this event particularly interesting because it shows that even though she felt rewarded as the winner of the oratorical competition, she still felt guilty for leaving her mother. The autobiography ends abruptly and seems unfinished because little is known of whether Zitkala-Sa will return home or continue with college.

Max's multimedia revision plan

I was planning to do a photostory for the project. I think that this qould fit my paper because I originally spoke out the paper so it will sound natural if I read it outloud. I am a fan of photostory because by using the pictures with your words that really adds to the overall mood of the project.

Roosevelt and Beveridge Thoughts

I thought the progression from Turner's paper to these essays gave us some insight. We as Americans have progressed from the era of "frontier expansion" to the era of "island expansion". Our nation has not stopped at the boundaries of our country; we have continued on to overtake smaller islands for their resources and land.

I believe Beveridge supports this logic of conquer and move on. He repeatedly states in his paper that every new piece of land conquered is another strong empire added to the Republic. His belief is that Americans should stop at nothing to bring every country under the fair ruling of the Republic.

Despite some of his barbaric and selfish points, he also addresses the opposition. He made the point across that the islands are good for the economy by bringing in goods like fruit and timber. He believes that our expansion will be more prosperous for us in the future than in the present.

Roosevelt's opinion is somewhat the opposite of Beveridge's opinion. He believes that good will only come from war when a noble cause is at stake. I believe that Roosevelt would've considered our expansion to the Phillipines and to Hawaii a noble cause. Our expansion was a peaceful one, and it was for the good of the people.

At this point in today, I believe our government sides with Roosevelt's opinion. We haven't conquered new territory in years, and our meddling in overseas affairs is more to help democracy spread than to help our borders spread.

Thomas Smith Roosevelt and Beveridge

After reading both pieces of literature, I feel that Roosevelt and Beveridge are getting the same point across, but focusing on different things. Beveridge seems to focus on the more conquering and militaristic side of peace. He believes that by obtaining more land and governing as many people as possible with the U.S.'s Republic, there would be more peace. Beveridge also seems to believe that we do not obtain land for the present time, but that we obtain the land for future use.

In Roosevelt's piece, Roosevelt stated that sometimes unjust peace is the worst type of peace. He said that most just peace comes through war, and that sometimes you have to go through some hard times to make things better. This really stood out to me because a lot of people say let's not do anything to keep the peace, but in actuality, it might be worse to not do anything. "The wisest and most far-seeing champions of peace will ever remember that, in the first place, to be good it must be righteous, for unrighteous and cowardly peace may be worse than any war; and, in the second place, that it can often be obtained only at the cost of war." (Roosevelt)

Connor Ellis: Thoughts on Pieces by Beveridge and Roosevelt

After reading “The March of the Flag” by Albert Beveridge and “Expansion and Peace” by Theodore Roosevelt it is clear that both of these men believed that America had a duty as a nation to expand and help those worse off. If they were to talk it is likely that both would agree that American expansion is a good thing but they may not have the same reasons.

Beveridge’s speech showed that he was a believer in the Divine Right of America to take over weaker nations. On many occasions he spoke about how God had created them solely for the purpose of making the world a better place. According to him it would be selfish and cowardly for Americans to not expand and take over weaker people. He refutes the argument that Americans should not govern others without consent by saying that “the rule of liberty…applies only to those who are capable of self-government”. The way that he words this sentence and the surrounding context shows that he thinks that without American intervention the world would be full of savages and brutes.

Roosevelt’s piece is similar to Beveridge’s speech in that he also wants to take over weaker nations but he has different motives. He advocates the use of war to lead to a greater peace. According to him “peace” is not truly peaceful; many nations commit atrocities which could be fixed by a war. One strong quote which conveys his message is that “peace may come only through war”. Roosevelt spoke specifically about the westward expansion of America which led to constant fighting between “settlers and red men”. He felt that it was worth all of this fighting because it led to a period of peace which continued up until the time that his piece was written.

Both men seemed to use repetition often in order to enforce their points. Roosevelt spoke of westward expansion by saying “Under Washington and Adams we expanded…; under Jefferson we expanded…; under Monroe we expanded” and Beveridge attempted to convince voters by saying “will you say that ours is the blood of government; ours the heart of dominion; ours the brain and genius of administration”. This repetition was likely effective for both of them, especially in the setting of a campaign speech where Beveridge surely added strong inflection and visual cues.

While reading these pieces, especially the speech by Beveridge, I could not stop thinking about how well they compare to Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. While the pieces by Beveridge and Roosevelt advocated expansion and control of weaker people Heart of Darkness showed the inherent problems and inhumanity of such rapid, uncontrolled expansion. Beveridge spoke of expansion in order to garner valuable resources much as Kurtz and his Company agents worked to take ivory from the Congo. Conrad’s novel showed the atrocities committed in search of better goods; similar atrocities occurred during the Westward Expansion in to Native American lands.