The Klansman is pledged to support law and order and it is also a part of his duty to see that both law and office are as god as possible
This statement should be qualified as Evans intends laws to be applied really only for the benefit of those he deems a part of the in-group. I have to comment also, that for a member of the supreme race Evans' writing is chock full of typos. Maybe spelling isn't seen as important when you're just too busy ironing those white robes.
Ilearnedanimportantlesson,oneworthrepeatingtoday.Thecurriculumshouldn’tbefarmedout,nottothefederalgovernmentandnottoprivategroups.Itshouldstayinthehandsofthepeoplewhoareconstitutionallyresponsibleforit:thecitizensofeachstate.
It seems like the lesson Lynne learned, is that if you don't get the policy results you want, keep doing it until you find people who'll give you the policies you agree with.
weneedtostopthinkingnationallyandthinkglobally.Ourhistoryissimplypartofalargerstory
I don't get her argument. It's basically that the U.S. is so amazing that it's history needs to be looked at separately from outside influences? This kind of thinking is so narrow parochial, why would you want your kids to have a less accurate understanding of history?
thePromisedLand
Ugh, yeah why aren't we pushing a religious mythos in the narrative of the nation's history? I could agree with this if it spoke to the broadest reason for immigration, economics. I'm assuming she's a big fan of the constitution but clearly not the separation of church and state. Again, I don't understand the desire to oversimplify history by pinning complex immigration realities to the bland simplicity of "seeking the Promised Land".
leaveslittleplacefortranscendentindividuals.Menandwomenwhowereoncestudiedasinspirationalfigureshavebecomeexamplesoftrends,andusuallynotupliftingones.
It's almost as if people are influenced by their environments and the chance circumstances of those surroundings! I don't understand this desire to over simplify history in terms of great people who just act on their volition. Nope, circumstances matter and while some personalities are stronger or more charismatic than others, we are social creatures influenced by our time and surroundings.
thereare18sections,andeightofthemtakeuptheoppressionofwomen,blacksandimmigrants.
Where to start on this? So Lynne is arguing that 8 out 18 sections focusing on women, blacks, and immigrant issues is too much? What would be a more appropriate ratio? I suspect that Lynne's version of American history would read like a menu at Denny's, inoffensive, brightly colored, homogenous, and glossy to the point of covering up the frightening reality of its ingredients.
Nonoticeistakenoftheconnectionthepresidentmadebetweenfreedomandhumanflourishing,noattentiontothefactthatwithin2½yearsofthespeech,peoplewerechippingoffpiecesoftheBerlinWallassouvenirs
It's clear that Lynne is of the camp that believes that Reagan brought about the reunification of Germany. Well Lynne, it's complicated. The reasons leading to the collapse of East Germany are numerous and a fair amount governed by chance. I suspect that she prefers "the great man" view of history which can't seem to accept that coincidence and circumstance play a major role in history.
Itseemedforamomentthatstudentswouldbeencouragedtolearnaboutpositiveaspectsofourpastratherthanbedirectedtofocusonthenegative,ashappensalltoooften.
I'm noticing as we approach the present day, I find it harder to respond to these historical documents with detached objectivity. Lynne Cheney, sigh, ok. I don't understand the argument that if history is dark or unpleasant it needs to be balanced by positive and happy accounts of the same period. Most of human history is about shifting power dynamics, which are often accomplished through violence, cruelty, and a general disregard for the humanity of others. Whether or not that makes for a pride filled journey in the study of history, should be irrelevant, but Lynne doesn't see it that way.
If we look to the answer as to why, for so many years, we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here, in this land, we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before.
It was in large part due to federal intervention that many of milestones you claim as a part of America's great destiny occurred. Please name a single part of U.S. development that occurred without federal aid.
that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule
Well it definitely is. Have fun enacting a libertarian based air traffic control system or regulating the stock market through a private organization. America's grandpa had a lot of ideas and he loved to oversimplify things with folksy banter but no real plans to run a modern society successfully.
For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
This is so bizarre as Reagan's military spending inflated the deficit to unprecedented levels. I think it went from just under 1 trillion to nearly 3 trillion during his presidency.
who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement
Hmm, yet Reagan enacted sweeping tax reforms that overwhelmingly favored the wealthy, including capital gains tax reforms that 40 years later have us back at Gilded Age inequality levels. This is a classic conservative technique, frame the issue as one affecting the average Joe, but write the policy to benefit the corporate elite.
a former actor, corporate spokesperson
I keep wondering how much of our present day Trump reality was made possible by Reagan, the original Chauncey Gardiner. Who just said the right things but really enacted a lot of policies that upended life for working class Americans.
Let me repeat, a massive homosexual revolution can bring the judgement of God upon this nation. Our children must not be recruited to a profane lifestyle.”
Wow, he even footnotes himself to remind us of the impending rapture brought about by same sex kissing. The sad part is his followers tend to have a lot of children, who then grow up indoctrinated.
We have never asked for such a privilege
False, Christian organizations have sought to and succeeded in censoring all sorts of media in U.S. history. Is part of leading a movement just being really confident in anything you say no matter how big a distortion of reality it might be? Seems like it.
Oral Majority.
That's hilarious! Oh Jerry Falwell, what else can I write about your words? You were a hate filled bigot whose words I'm supposed to parse over with the delicate comb of historical perspective. I'm running out of steam here.
that homosexuals do not reproduce! They recruit!
This is hilarious. Like gay people are military recruiters just waiting to pounce on new targets. Sadly I just realized that Jerry Falwell Jr. seems not too far from his father ideologically, I'm guessing he's just more private about his extreme views.
militant homosexuals
What is a militant homosexual? I can't even begin to imagine what that would be. Sigh, why do people like Jerry Falwell end up being studied in history books but not Fred Rogers?
The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers;
No, the general public is always looking for easy answers and will never favor subtle but harsh truths over simplistic rhetoric.
the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world
This happened because you created a consumer culture obsessed with spending. Name one aspect of popular American culture that emphasize spending? That's not something credit card companies are too keen on promoting, therefore it's a message lost to the tides of history for now.
Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
Well this was clearly never given much more thought by the American public. In the past 40 years our culture has exponentially zoomed towards material obsession, no matter what you think of God.
too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption
Well when you build a society reliant upon consumption this is what occurs. Love how he complains about economic stagnation but he's blaming excessive consumption?
We’ve always believed in something called progress. We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.
What happens when a civilization realizes the next generation will have it worse in some ways? It's a question I don't think Americans are capable of confronting yet but it is occurring, I wonder how we will respond. I would hope with a level of acceptance, not every aspect of a society has to march towards "progress".
and I have to admit, with just mixed success.
I find it notable that Carter was willing to openly admit that his agenda was not playing out as he had envisioned. Too often modern leaders can't seem to admit any flaws or failures, it's one of the most alienating features of popular leadership.
someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn’t have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can’t say that we have made a mistake.
It's so sad that despite these words the US wouldn't leave Vietnam for another 4 years and so many more lives would be lost. It's amazing to me how Vietnam managed to recover and is now a nation with an incredible future, although flawed.
We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties
I really don't think Kerry ever mentioned anything like this in his 2004 campaign, how amazing would it of been for him to point out the systemic racism of the early 2000's that we are still plagued by.
the difference between communism and democracy
Hmm it's interesting that Kerry sets these up as diametrically opposed. I've always thought it would be more accurate to describe what he means as authoritarian but it's easier to win an argument by playing up people's preconceived notions of communism.
for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever
I still find it incredible that the Vietnamese managed to push out not only the French but also the Americans, and then the Chinese in 1980s, not to mention wiping out the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Vietnam is an amazing nation despite its limitations and the decades of foreign intervention.
On April 23, 1971, a young Vietnam veteran named John Kerry spoke on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War before the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations. Kerry, later a Massachusetts Senator and 2004 presidential contender, articulated a growing disenchantment with the Vietnam War and delivered a blistering indictment of the reasoning behind its prosecution.
I've wondered how much of Kerry's lost 2004 presidential bid stemmed from his affiliation with the anti war movement in 1970's. During 2004 it seemed like it would help as the Iraq War was unpopular, but it's hard to be a president in war time.
for the last twenty-five years there is no record of any person with a Mexican or Latin American name having served on a jury commission, grand jury or petit jury in Jackson County.
That is crazy! Not a single Latin person in all that time despite them being a big chunk of the entire population? Even though some of those people are male landowners? I shudder to think how foolishly we act now that history will look back upon us with shame.
Until very recent times, children of Mexican descent were required to attend a segregated school for the first four grades. At least one restaurant in town prominently displayed a sign announcing “No Mexicans Served.” On the courthouse grounds at the time of the hearing, there were two men’s toilets, one unmarked, and the other marked “Colored Men” and “Hombres Aqui” (“Men Here”). …
This alone destroys the Texas argument, how could they even try to hold the argument with all those tangible forms of segregation in their everyday lives. I think part of their twisted logic is not being able to draw firm boundaries between races which upsets their worldview.
Throughout our history differences in race and color have defined easily identifiable groups which have at times required the aid of the courts in securing equal treatment under the laws
I wonder if "our history" is US history, western civilization history, human history. How far back does this go? Is this referencing anything other than black/white relations?
The State of Texas would have us hold that there are only two classes–white and Negro–within the contemplation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decisions of this Court do not support that view.
Take that state of Texas! I wonder what the court divide was on this decision? Did it follow party lines or were they fairly unified? On another note I wonder if state level judges appear or allowed to attend supreme court trials?
His only claim is the right to be indicted and tried by juries from which all members of his class are not systematically excluded–juries selected from among all qualified persons regardless of national origin or descent. To this much, he is entitled by the Constitution.
I wonder what federal agency ensures that jury pools are representative of the demographics of an area. Is this something that census data can or is used for? Also ending a supreme court ruling with that mention of the constitution is the judicial equivalent of the mic drop.
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
I wonder what was meant by authority? What was of high enough caliber to convince the judges other than common sense? It would be nice to have access to the whole statement, this seems like an excerpt.
Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. …
I wonder what was stated in this statement after the ellipsis? Maybe that was a stylistic choice by the judges? I find legal tet to be some of the most challenging for me to interpret as a single statement has countless qualifiers and conditions that it's core message becomes obscure to me.
“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system.”
It's incredible that this was expressed so perfectly but the the black students were still ruled against. It is difficult to imagine how one can articulate this argument so well but the judges still side against you. I wonder how the decision was defended in Kansas?
Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
I find it odd that this sentiment was at first described as important at the college level but only later was it stressed to be important earlier on in education. Perhaps they needed time to reflect on how these segregated adults had developed differently?
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
I am not sure whose voice this is written in? Is this the ruling of the court or another person in the trial? The text uses "We" but I'm uncertain who this "We" is. I'm going to go with it being the court/judges voice.
. The cops were on the streets escorting the nationals and wetbacks to the fields. The cops had guns. The ranchers had guns, too.
It's strange to me that he complains about the scabs but doesn't seem to want to address the root of the issue, which are owners and government officials using the threat of violence to undermine union actions. Instead of asking for industry regulation he wants more threats of violence towards the non-unionized.
We went out and arrested the wetbacks who were living in caves and on the ditches and we took them to the border patrol.
I had never heard of this happening, and right next to San Diego! How incredible to imaginef rom our perspective in the era of Arizona Border Vigilantes and so much inflammatory rhetoric about the Wall
Local people work better but wetbacks and nationals are hired anyway.
What does that even mean?Field picking work is really hard on your body and anyone who does it for a day is worthy of a decent wage. It's strange to think how in my lifetime the greater threat will be or already is automation.
The wetbacks and nationals from Mexico have the whole Imperial Valley. They have invaded not only the Imperial Valley but all the United States. The nationals and wetbacks take any wages the ranchers offer to pay them.
I find it strange that on the one hand he is pro union and suffered the consequences for it but on the other hand he is anti other laborers as they undercut his target wage. It's strange to me that the owners aren't the greater target of his frustration.
a migrant worker named Juanita Garcia testifies to Congress about the state of affairs in California’s Imperial Valley.
It's difficult to tell who belongs to which group of people in this source. Is this a migrant worker who came to the US a long time ago? Were they born to migrant laborers? It's strange to read about a migrant worker complaining about migrant workers. Maybe the distinction lies in bracero worker vs undocumented worker?
to accept assistance of state and local agencies.
I wonder how much state and municipal authorities in the west coast cooperated with federal agencies. I imagine for the most part they assisted with no issue but it would be interesting to learn of those edge cases where maybe through ties of friendship or family some relationships were tested and the local authorities granted leniency or sheltered Japanese people from federal agents.
I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.
It's curious how the verbiage of this order is so heavy on legalese. It reads as dry, unemotional, but it's impact was tremendous and dramatic. I must admit I find the vocabulary rather challenging to decipher. I'm curious if all executive orders follow this tonal format.
alien enemies
I've heard that some German immigrants were targeted as well but not at all at the scale the Japanese community was. I sincerely doubt that Italians were as heavily surveilled much less moved away from major metropolitan areas.
over 120,000 men, women, and children of Japanese descent
I know people whose parents as nisei were forced to leave southern California to go live in the desert. They lost their homes, businesses, and entire way of life. Some of them were able to regain elements of their former lives, many weren't and they never felt safe again in the U.S.
residents
I find it peculiar and telling that FDR does not at any point in this executive order use the words citizens or civilians. He uses persons and alien but no mention of terms which we would associate with constitutional rights. I cannot imagine the horror of having your home and family striped away to go live in the desert.
Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike
I really enjoy how he notes that the structure of the U.S. government was set up to prevent both extremes rule by an elite and rule by the sentiments of the mob. I think we're living in era where democracy is always upheld as the ultimate form of building policy but as our civilization grows in complexity fewer of us are qualified to meaningfully judge the issues of our times. How can we expect the average person to have a sophisticated enough understanding of macroeconomics, global warming, immigration policy, terrorism, healthcare, and foreign relations to such a degree that they are able to wisely choose candidates who can then address those issues? I
Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales.
This is fascinating b/c right now we live in era of intense cynicism towards government programs, to a ridiculous degree. I often wonder how it came to be that it became popular to ridicule government agencies, except for the military, it's a popular part of the Republican party platform to view any federal expansion as wasteful, when such an oversimplified notion of government too often holds back progress.
There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.
This is an amazing quote and one that speaks to how the Boomer generation took so very much and now the following generations are having so much asked of them in ways the Boomers never did. I really do wonder if the Strauss-Howe generational theory holds any water?
Liberty requires opportunity to make a living—a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
This also speaks to Roosevelt's idea that as the capacity to produce more increases we must uplift everyone's standard of living, not just the wealthy. It's sad and frustrating that due to the deregulation started in the Reagan years we are back to dealing with how to make our society less horrifically unequal.
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
This is the nature of the struggle for freedom in the modern era, that the means of production are controlled by a few wealthy elite and the lack of precedent in civilization for power flowing not from royalty, religion, or government, but rather industry. The challenge of the modern era is how to incorporate industry in a manner that balances it's power fairly among those in the democracy.
Women are to have children when they want them, that’s the first thing.
I wonder what Eastman would have thought of the advent of readily available contraceptives in the middle of the century. From what I understand the term birth control was developed just prior to the 1920's. It's interesting to think how sometimes terminology can proceed the reality of a technology. Although in this case birth control was often a euphemism for abortion, but I'm not sure.
their privilege of helplessness without a struggle. The average man has a carefully cultivated ignorance about household matters — from what to do with the crumbs to the grocer’s telephone number — a sort of cheerful inefficiency which protects him better than the reputation for having a violent temper.
I think of this often as my father is incapable of doing simple things like making his bed, doing the laundry, washing dishes. Whenever he is asked about this he insists he simply cannot, it's not how he was raised. I cannot imagine being so unwilling to take simple adult actions, it will always baffle me.
Freedom is a large word.
I love this simple sentence, it says so much. I have no doubt after the ratification of the 19th amendment that some people felt that women no longer could complain, they had the vote, what more could they want? Freedom is not just voting, freedom is feeling comfortable existing in multiple settings and it's very easy to imagine scenarios in 1920 when women did not feel comfortable.
And second, if and when they choose housework and child-raising, to have that occupation recognized by the world as work, requiring a definite economic reward and not merely entitling the performer to be dependent on some man.
I had no idea that the notion of homemaker being a paid role was a matter of contention so far back. I had assumed this was part of a more contemporary discussion of motherhood. It would be interesting to learn how the arguments for/against such a aotion have changed in the past century, perhaps they have changed little.
human beings, with a chance to exercise their infinitely varied gifts in infinitely varied ways, instead of being destined by the accident of their sex to one field of activity—housework and child-raising
It's depressing that we are still dealing with this issue nearly 100 years later. We still define women by child raising and in many cultures the options are still incredibly limiting. I suspect that it will take many more years, but I am hopeful that women are afforded a great spectrum of being human.
in my own behalf and in behalf of hundreds of thousands whom you decry and state to be antipatriotic,
I'm very curious where the anarchist movement was most emboldened in the US. What section of the country would have given rise to and supported this form of movement? Perhaps the industrialized Northeast, maybe New York City or Philadelphia? What was the leadership structure of the anarchist movement?
But that must not make us blind to the social faults of America. That cannot make us deaf to the discords of America.
I wonder what these faults were? There are many to be sure, but what was it that an anarchist would take most issue with? Slavery, the indigenous genocide, the racially based restriction of immigration, the extreme treatment of the working class by the gilded age industrialists?
That cannot compel us to be inarticulate to the terrible wrongs committed in the name of patriotism and in the name of the country. We simply insist, regardless of all protests to the contrary, that this war is not a war for democracy. If it were a war for the purpose of making democracy safe for the world, we would say that democracy must first be safe for America before it can be safe for the world.
I'm curious what Goldman's role in the SSA violation was. As a woman it would not have applied to her but her she is standing in court accused. Perhaps she aided men fleeing to Canada?
that we love America, we love her beauty, we love her riches, we love her mountains and her forests, and above all we love the people who have produced her wealth and riches, who have created all her beauty, we love the dreamers and the philosophers and the thinkers who are giving America liberty. But that must not make us blind to the social faults of America.
I wonder what public actions Goldman took to bring notice to herself from the government. Obviously there was this speech, but what further actions were taken by her to draw so much notice? Since this presented to court I'm curious when in her court case this speech was given?
The kind of patriotism we represent is the kind of patriotism which loves America with open eyes. Our relation towards America is the same as the relation of a man who loves a woman, who is enchanted by her beauty and yet who cannot be blind to her defects.
Goldman describes a patriotism in which critique of the nation is allowed and perhaps encouraged. Where you can appreciate the nation while simultaneously noticing its flaws and weaknesses.
No one or no organization ever succeeded in uniting the Negro race. But within the last four years, the Universal Negro Improvement Association has worked wonders.
I wonder what the UNIA managed to accomplish versus other back to Africa, racial unity movements? Was it successful, I suspect Africans would not be so eager to join in the cause of the descendants f slaves who had not been in Africa for centuries.
We want every Negro to work for one common object, that of building a nation of his own on the great continent of Africa.
Was this not the goal of Liberia? I believe Liberia was founded in the mid-1800s, what role does that nation play with UNIA goals? At this time how was Liberia developing? Was there tension between the UNIA and Liberia?
e want the moral and financial support of every Negro to make this dream a possibility. Our race, this organization, has established itself in Nigeria, West Africa, and it endeavors to do all possible to develop that Negro country to become a great industrial and commercial commonwealth.
I can't help but think of the recent popular movie, Black Panther. Where an African culture escaped European colonization and is a flourishing technological sophisticated culture. Did movements like this influence that fictional depiction?
to Nigeria, and they are now laying the foundations upon which the four hundred million Negroes of the world will build.
I'm curious as to how Africans felt about this movement? The focus fro African Americans on West Africa is understandable but Africa is huge swath of land and cultures, I doubt they were all united in supporting a message of racial unity.
We hear the cry of “England for the Englishman,” of “France for the Frenchman,” of “Germany for the German,” of “Ireland for the Irish,” of “Palestine for the Jew,” of “Japan for the Japanese,” of “China for the Chinese.”
I'm curious to the mentions of nationalism sweeping the world at this time in the mid twenties, post WWI. What was the political climate like? Were the nationalist movements more of a response to counter colonialism? How was this movement shaped by WWI?
“That we believe the home is the foundation of the State; we believe in the sanctity of the marriage relation; and, furthermore, we believe that woman’s ballot will strengthen the power of the home
Why does the home need strengthening? I wonder how many suffragists did not desire marriage but felt obligated to show support for traditional family structures? It would be fascinating to learn more about what they truly desired from adult relationships.
It will turn women into men.
Why is this such a common refrain amongst those opposed to progressive causes? This fear of losing masculinity or femininity seems to stretch back eons, why does this have to be the defining characteristic of our identities?
The man who is not controlled by sentiment betrays his friends, sells his vote, is a traitor to his country, or wrecks himself, body and soul, with immoralities; for nothing but sentiment prevents any of these things.
This seems like a classic matchup between enlightenment and romantic ideals. It's a debate that still lingers on and many people still believe that men are more rational while women more emotional, which seems like hogwash. Humans live across a spectrum of emotions and analytical capabilities regardless of sex. To claim that emotion blocks reason ignores the crucial function feelings fulfill in our ability to navigate the world.
Justice and chivalry are not in the least incompatible. Women have more freedom and equality in America than in Europe, yet American men are the most chivalrous in the world.
I'm curious what chivalry consists of in this context and how/if it differs from our conception? It makes me wonder if chivalry and equality are truly compatible, perhaps?
Of course no account ought to be taken of the opinions of children
I wonder what was considered childhood at this point in history the age range off childhood has fluctuated a good amount. I also wonder what was the minimum voting age at this time, as I know it was changed to 18 with an amendment in the early 1970s, I'm guessing it was 21.
but laboring incessantly
It's rather hilarious that he complains that the Chinese work too hard. I have no doubt if they worked less he would complain that they don't work enough. Blaming immigrants in broad strokes is an American pastime and one that present day even bold blue California has a deep and twisted history with.
They may in small numbers benefit individual employers, but they breed the germs of a national disease, which spreads as they spread, and grows as they grow.
I'm not sure what Phelan means by this notion that the Chinese are alright in small numbers? Perhaps he fears some critical mass that would influence the democratic process? It's eerily reminiscent of the immigration debate we face today. It seems no matter how much time passes in our nation's history the latest arrivals are frequently the scapegoats for most social ills.
The Chinese, by putting a vastly inferior civilization in competition with our own, tend to destroy the population, on whom the perpetuity of free government depends.
This judgement of CHinese inferiority ignores the millennia of relative prosperity experienced by CHina vs much of the West. It also ignores how a great deal of colonial activity in the Americas began from a desire to have better access to Chinese goods. No where else in the world, save for maybe India, has been able to support such a huge swath of humanity for so much time.
To show the unanimity of the people, I may point out that the Legislature submitted by referendum the question of Chinese immigration to a popular vote. For Chinese immigration 883 votes were polled, and against Chinese immigration 154,638 votes.
This seems like a classic example of a weakness of democracy, namely that popular ideas are therefore good ideas. Here we have a mob voting out of xenophobia to exclude an entire nationality and this is deemed just because a majority of people desire the ban.
The influx having been checked, the danger to California has been averted, and, consequently, during the last decade industrial conditions indicate comparative prosperity; whereas it is well known that prior to the Exclusion Laws the State of California suffered acutely from labor troubles and business derangement. Unemployed men, hungry from want of work, marched the streets of the cities, inaugurated political parties, disturbed the peace of communities by riotous outbreaks which threatened at times the foundations of law and order; and these facts gave to James Bryce a fruitful theme for speculation on democracy in his excellent work, “The American Commonwealth.”
It's interesting that he notes the problems and even quotes a source but offers no metrics to back up his claim that the presence of the Chinese really did lead to all these terrible hardships. I strongly suspect the boom and bust cycle of the early days of the state of California are more likely culprits.
The negro by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.
He's admitting that his hierarchical views of race has uncertain origin, it might be science, it might be based on apocryphal scripts. ¯\(ツ)/¯ Seems like a pretty shaky foundation for a major tenet of your civilization.
its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.
It's remarkable to decide to construct an entire society based upon notions of delusional supremacy.
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the “storm came and the wind blew, it fell.”
The certainty that Stephens writes with is not surprising. Why does it seem like those with the most confidence in their opinions are often guilty of horrible opinions?
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
This is a very clear statement in support of the roots of the Civil War conflict. Too often I hear modern day confederate sympathizers claim that slavery was not a root cause of the war. This bluntly contradicts that notion.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are, and ever have been, in the various branches of science.
This is a wild misrepresentation of the scientific process. Some scientific ideas actually developed very quickly and some took a long time. Also why is he placing astronomical truths on the same plane as human rights violations?
It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances or to question them.
So he just made a speech arguing why "reason" is the best justification for slavery but hear he changes his argument back to just Providence?
shall be deemed vagrants; and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined in the sum of not exceeding, in the case of a freedman, free Negro, or mulatto, 150, and a white man, $200, and imprisoned at the discretion of the court, the free Negro not exceeding ten days, and the white man not exceeding six months
I have no doubt that a great part of the reasoning here is that any public assembly of former slaves was feared and this law provided the authority to prevent any such gatherings.
ppeal to the next term of the county court of the proper county, upon giving bond and security in a sum not less than $25 nor more than $150, conditioned to appear and prosecute said appeal, and abide by the judgment of the county court, and said appeal shall be tried de novo in the county court, and the decision of said court shall be final.
I have a strong feeling that in $25-$150 was an outrageous amount of money to expect former slaves to make bond.
every deserting employee aforesaid the sum of $5, and 10 cents per mile from the place of arrest to the place of delivery,
again, for the time this is a handsome sum, it's pretty sickening how they were making it lucrative to kidnap former slaves who dared to quit a job.
no freedman, free Negro, or mulatto not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry firearms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk, or Bowie knife; and, on conviction thereof in the county court, shall be punished by fine, not exceeding $10,
Seems like a pretty strong violation of the 2nd amendment and it serves of a reminder of how selectively gun rights activists have applied the amendment, generally at the exclusion of the black community. Also $10 is an insane amount, that's roughly $180 based on inflation calculators, that's not an amount a former slave would be able to earn in a reasonable time frame.
Be it further enacted, that all the penal and criminal laws now in force in this state defining offenses and prescribing the mode of punishment for crimes and misdemeanors committed by slaves, free Negroes, or mulattoes be and the same are hereby reenacted and declared to be in full force and effect against freedmen, free Negroes, and mulattoes, except so far m the mode and manner of trial and punishment have been changed or altered by law….
This seems like a backhanded way to reanimate laws from the pre-Civil War period that were very likely incredibly discriminatory and blatantly biased.
Whenever the white man treats the Indian as they treat each other then we shall have no more wars. We shall be all alike — brothers of one father and mother, with one sky above us and one country around us and one government for all.
It's remarkable that despite the atrocities committed he envisions a time of peace. I wonder what he would make of the persistent marginalizations of tribes on reservations to this day, with their deficits in education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
When I think of our condition, my heart is heavy. I see men of my own race treated as outlaws and driven from country to country, or shot down like animals.
It's bizzare to think that the indigenous people were essentially refugees forced from their own lands b/c a pronounced sense of Otherness the white population manufactured with notions such as manifest destiny.
. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers.
Here we see the some of the most popular rhetoric from the Declaration of Independence being referenced, perhaps not intentionally but the white politicians must of known that they were doing something awful or perhaps the geographic distance between their policy actions and the effects on the indigenous people were just too great a mental leap for them to make.
Good words do not last long unless they amount to something. Words do not pay for my dead people. They do not pay for my country now overrun by white men. They do not protect my father’s grave. They do not pay for my horses and cattle. Good words do not give me back my children. Good words will not make good the promise of your war chief, General Miles. Good words will not give my people a home where they can live in peace and take care of themselves. I am tired of talk that comes to nothing.
It's again, shocking how much this mirrors the gun violence/school shootings debate, where a lot of talk doesn't seem to result in much change.
I have seen the Great Father Chief [President Hayes]; the Next Great Chief [Secretary of the Interior]; the Commissioner Chief [Commissioner of Indian Affairs]; the Law Chief [General Butler]; and many other law chiefs [Congressmen] and they all say they are my friends, and that I shall have justice, but while all their mouths talk right I do not understand why nothing is done for my people.
This is a sentiment I identify with in relation to so much of our current political discourse. It's outrage followed by rhetoric, followed by more outrage, in a ceaseless cycle.
the meeting point between savagery and civilization
I wonder how much actual contact with indigenous people Frederick Jackson actually had, I can't imagine it was actually very profound based on his myopic reading of them.
The result is that to the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics. That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance which comes with freedom—these are traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier.
It's rather boring to read yet another man infatuated with the false notion of rugged American individualism being the dominant force in all areas of "progress" of the nation. Why do these people seem incapable of noticing how many government programs and actions aided their settlement?
The stubborn American environment is there with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways of doing things are also there; and yet, in spite of environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new field of opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the frontier.
I'm very curious what aspects of American culture he finds so bold and unique? People have been conquering territories for millenia, not sure how the US's expansion was different, other than that nation state vs empire approach.
And now, four centuries from the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the Constitution, the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of American history.
As much as I despise the notion that these men were exploring "untouched" lands, nonetheless, it must be a fascinating feeling to imagine oneself being so brave and curious.
And now, four centuries from the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the Constitution, the frontier has gone, and with its going has closed the first period of American history.
I imagine this text was received proudly by Whites who saw themselves as taming a great land. I am left wondering how he as a historian would of interpreted the century that followed this text's publication.
Th whole history of the world, on it s broader lines, has been one of race conflicts, wars, subjugation or extinction. This is not pretty and certainly disagrees with the maudlin theories of cosmopolitanism, but it is truth. The world has been so made that each race must fight for its life, must conquer, accept slavery or die.
It would be interesting to expose a mind like Evans' to the concept that white supremacy is actually a product of european colonization and was not a popular sentiment in the pre-modern world. It would also be entertaining to watch him try to define race.
Americanism, to the Klansman, is a thing of the spirit, a purpose and a point of view, that can only come through instinctive racial understanding
It's bizarre that he deems Americanism "a thing of the spirit" and than immediately qualifies it by saying it's racially based. Seems like a blatant contradiction which is only further convoluted by his proclamations about diversity and individualism.
Mongrelization has been proven bad. It is only between closely related stocks of the same race that interbreeding has improved men;
it's pretty funny to consider how all of modern biology has consistently demonstrated that a larger gene pool is healthier as the diversity of traits allows the group to better adapt to changing environments. Somehow I'm not surprised that a KKK wizard has a flawed understanding of evolutionary biology.
These are the instincts of loyalty to the white race, to the traditions of America, and to the spirit of Protestantism,
These are the three great racial instincts according to Evans. These aspects are most likely deemed important to Evans b/c they roughly correlate with the features of some of the early English settlers, they were white protestants. I'm not sure what he means by the "traditions of America" other than making the point that white British people arrived en masse before other immigrant groups.It's interested how whiteness is held up as so essential but it rarely delineated.
to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died.
McKinley was in office until 1901, I wonder at what point US foreign policy changed from being so bluntly pro-Christian? Not that it has switched away from promoting Christianity but the propaganda is more subtle in contemporary times.
that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was
It's curious how this is such an ingrained belief, that self rule was just not an option. If European powers had not taken control of the Philippines would another Asian power of conquered them? Based on my rough understanding of the dynamics of East and South East Asia I suspect Japan would of taken control of the islands, barring activity by France and Germany.
That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable;
I'm not sure how it would be cowardly or dishonorable really, the Spanish military in the late 1800's not much of a match for the US Navy. I'm guessing this is based on notions of duty and honor that are quite foreign to me. Maybe it was dishonorable towards the US Navy, after putting all that effort in to just give the territory back?
I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night.
I wonder how far off we are from having politicians who do not publicly invoke God in explaining their decisions, luck, and hopes? Based on demographic trends we are at least a century or more from popular politicians being able to speak frankly about their agnosticism.
The truth is I didn’t want the Philippines, and when they came to us, as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them.
McKinley viewed the Philippines as an exotic locale that diverged greatly from the culture of contiguous states. His discomfort was based on bringing into the Union a collection of thousands of islands whose culture he could not even begin to grasp.
On the left side we have a caricature of black person washing the windows. The subtext here is that while African Americans are allowed in the US, they are not to be educated, they are here to act as obedient servants. The facial depiction is particularly offensive and recalls minstrel show depictions.
Adjacent to the front entrance we see a native child reading a book upside down. This is to tell us the reader that indigenous people are not smart. It's also worth noting that Alaska is the only darker skinned pupil who is being obedient. I am unfamiliar with the history of Alaska but I suspect this a gross simplification of US relations with the Inuit.
Living in an age where consent is a hot topic it is interesting to see how consent is deemed unnecessary for governance. This is supported both by the chalkboard text and the writing above the crown molding on the white wall. This usage really underscores the perception of other racial groups as infantile in comparison to the sole adult, the tall white AMerican teacher.
Outside of the classroom we see what I think is a Chinese student, who due to the exclusion acts has to wait outside the classroom. It's interested how this assumes that the Chinese would be anxiously awaiting a chance to enter, although I am unfamiliar with the state of China at that time, I believe their finally dynasty was in a state of rapid decline.
The US having won the recent war with Spain now finds itself with the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Cuba as territories. This is a horrifically racist depiction of those cultures being infantile in the eyes of the artist whose identity I cannot find.
Hawaii is also present as by the late 1800's the US had deposed of the Hawaiian monarchy, installed a puppet regime, and then annexed the territory. Again the infantile depiction is pretty darn insulting towards Hawaiians.