Gerstle’s Historiographical of Mainstream Americanism
Gary Gerstle attempts to reinterpret twentieth-century American history in light of the power of race (and to a much lesser extent, or even not at all, class and gender). The American Crucible conceptualizes American liberals as well as whiteness scholars’ synthetic historiographical interpretations on mainstream Americanism like Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt- Theodore Roosevelt especially, due the author’s attention to the meaning of the liberal state and liberalism. However, above all that, Gerstle argues that inherent tensions between two powerful types of nationalism- racial and civic- have decisively shaped American history, policy-making and political debates in the twentieth
…show more content…
For instance, after understanding TR’s racial inspiration, the light shines bright on how TR is the manifestation of this tension, although it is more so a mixture, between racial and civic nationalism. Likewise, TR actually makes Gerstle’s argument: “If for Karl Marx history was the history of class conflict, for Roosevelt it was the history of race conflict…” (Gerstle 17). During this time, Roosevelt brought together his racial hybrid views, which at this point, had a growing desire for an exemplary idealized American race; however, this would take a controlled integration stew of wanted races. Miraculously enough TR uses this very same recipe with the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War: “three cups of south-westerners, leavening tablespoons of Ivy Leaguers and Indians, and a sprinkling of Jews, Irish, Italians, and Scandinavians yielded, in Roosevelt’s eyes, a sterling, all-American regiment” (Gerstle 28). Roosevelt is also a very devoted individual in regards to civic nationalism; Gerstle uses Michael Ignatieff’s words to explain how TR would visualize the nation “as a community of equal, rights-bearing citizens united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of political practices and values” (Gerstle 45). However, this is when the irony comes into play. At times, TR’s ideas or speeches would sometimes contradict his …show more content…
Franklin Delano Roosevelt takes office four years later with an understanding that he has to somehow reestablish the morale of the nation as a whole. The actions FDR takes to bring back economic prosperity all starts with “…an experiment in state building without precedent” (Gerstle 128). FDR knows that he needs to continue in the footsteps of what TR did and Gerstle even gives some notice to the amount he is actually able to authorize. The most prevalent is the government’s huge contribution to jumpstarting the American economy, since up to this point in time, the government tried to stay out of the regulation the economy; however, this forever will change that. Gerstle argues that FDR was successful and he supports his claim by giving a hypothetical speculation on if he was viewed as successful in the eyes of Theodore Roosevelt. Gerstle also relates FDR’s New Deal back to his thesis by saying how it “… shaped the civic nationalism of those years” (Gerstle 130). FDR, as well as TR, share a very important view point that Gerstle makes clear: they both have the same standpoint on racial hybridity. One of the most important parts of is how much influence TR’s New Nationalism had on FDR’s New Deal. This is a turning point in American history because it brings back the war mobilization of TR, since “FDR
During the process of reading this compilation of works, Portrait of America, many different point of views were aired. The opinion or attitude on the subject was too tainted. The authors were very biased to their perception of the "story". This book could have been much more beneficial if the facts would have stayed to the straight and narrow. Only the detrimental facts needed to be applied to these chapters. For a history class, as broad as this, this book opened too many doors that could not be explained in as much detail as would be liked. Many of the authors enjoyed mentioning the most scandalous moments of the people's lives then dropped the fact without much support or follow through as to what happened to cause or end these events. Brief summaries only tease the mind, and with the course load of most students, there is hardly extra time to investigate the matter further in detail. For a class such as History 152, biographies and/or documentary style books are more worth the while of the student. For instance make a list of a selection of novels that could be read for the class, so that every student can then explore in depth what that student thinks is interesting. Although the book was teasing in nature the chapters did flow well and were easy to read. The procession of the chapters had wonderful transition as to not loose the student. While proceeding through this book there were several different reoccurring topics that appeared. This paper will discuss these two reoccurring topics: the civil rights movement and former presidents.
In his book, A New Deal for the American People, Roger Biles analyzes the programs of the New Deal in regards to their impact on the American society as a whole. He discusses the successes and failures of the New Deal policy, and highlights the role it played in the forming of American history. He claims that the New Deal reform preserved the foundation of American federalism and represented the second American Revolution. Biles argues that despite its little reforms and un-revolutionary programs, the New Deal formed a very limited system with the creation of four stabilizers that helped to prevent another depression and balance the economy.
Gary Gerstle argues America followed a path both civic and racial nationalism throughout the 20th century in his book American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century, and that America is a melting pot of different cultures due to the accumulation of immigrants in the twentieth century. He uses Theodore Roosevelt as a support base for his arguments. Civic nationalism is the idealized understanding of America as an ethnic and cultural melting pot based on civil rights, and on the values of equality and liberty no matter the race and ethnicity of one another. Civic nationalism claims a nation can still grow stronger and better based solely on civil rights and citizenship.
Hahn’s most important point is his idea that a large number of black activists put forth multi-racial and democratic vision of the nation in which birth and loyalty determined rights and citizenship rather than race. Because African Americans put forth this remarkably modern view of America, it brings up the question of who built and defined this great
When considering the presidents of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt is almost always associated with ideas of imperialism, progressivism, and masculinity. Bederman uses Roosevelt as the perfect example of manhood and exposes his form of racially dominant manhood. She writes, “for Roosevelt, race and gender, were inextricably intertwined with each other” (214). Evidence of this can be found in her discussion of Roosevelt’s African
He attempts to shock his reader into believing America is falling apart by comparing the diverse cultures that are active in it today. At one point in the essay, Buchanan writes “Our population is down to 67 percent European, and falling; 14.5 percent Hispanic and rising rapidly, 13 percent black and holding, and 4.5 percent Asian and rising” (599). The usage of “Our” in the sense of talking about Americans is a viewpoint that excludes anyone who is not white from being a true American. In addition, Buchanan is segregating the population by the color of their skin and creating an ethnic hierarchy. By only including white people in the definition of an American, Buchanan is showing an ethnocentric trait that Fredrickson analysed in his own essay. Fredrickson describes this changing viewpoint in American society when he examines the acceptance of all white people and the differences between colored people growing “more striking and salient than ever” (567). In general, Buchanan does not recognize the differences between white people, focusing primarily on the differences between white and non-white people. The correlation between the statistics he presents and the color of people’s skin undoubtedly prove Buchanan’s take on skin color and their ability to be American. This trait within Buchanan’s writing, coupled with the non-acceptance of colored people, has a strong presence throughout his essay, ultimately weakening his
During the Progressive Era, our country was going through many changes and those changes have had numerous effects that are still apparent today. Theodore Roosevelt and Randolph Bourne both had very differing opinions about how citizens should be seen by themselves and their governments. The main difference between Roosevelt’s and Bourne’s theories on citizenship is the amount of domination and empowerment that was posed to the people. Roosevelt had thought that the people of American should only identify as American, even if they were born in another country. Bourne’s opinion was drastically different form Roosevelt’s by believing that the people of America should embrace their own cultures and share it with the rest of the country. Using Randolph Bourne’s “Trans-National America” and Theodore Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” this essay will show that over time Bourne’s idea of empowering the diversity of citizens has been more successful than Roosevelt’s idea of having a society that was more dominated by a the need for everyone to be the same.
Franklin Roosevelt influenced American society in a so many drastic ways. The impact Franklin Roosevelt left on the United States showed the power to overcome adversity. Franklin Delano Roosevelt served as the President from March 1933 to April 1945, the longest tenure in American history. This essay is going to focus on ethnicity concerns that arose before and during F.D.R presidency. There were many successes and failures in Franklin Delano Roosevelt's wartime diplomacy. His policies were successful in that they led to the end of the war with Germany and Japan. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was relatively unknown to politics until his campaign for presidency in 1932. He won the landslide election not because the public was sure he was capable
...y new ideas, presidents after him felt they had a lot to live up to. Franklin D. Roosevelt “cast a long shadow on successors” with his New Deal program. Conservatives were constantly worried about the loss of their capitalist economy, but it is possible that Roosevelt’s greatest New Deal achievement is the fact he never allowed America to completely abandon democracy or turn to socialism or communism. Many New Deal programs fixed economic problems but did not completely solve social ones surrounding equality and discrimination. New Deal programs took radical steps while moving toward government regulation and intervention causing conservatives to fear concentrated power, but the steps and transformations Roosevelt made while in office preserved conservatives’ need of capitalism and democracy in government, defining the New Deal as both radical and conservative.
During the 1920’s, America was a prosperous nation going through the “Big Boom” and loving every second of it. However, this fortune didn’t last long, because with the 1930’s came a period of serious economic recession, a period called the Great Depression. By 1933, a quarter of the nation’s workers (about 40 million) were without jobs. The weekly income rate dropped from $24.76 per week in 1929 to $16.65 per week in 1933 (McElvaine, 8). After President Hoover failed to rectify the recession situation, Franklin D. Roosevelt began his term with the hopeful New Deal. In two installments, Roosevelt hoped to relieve short term suffering with the first, and redistribution of money amongst the poor with the second. Throughout these years of the depression, many Americans spoke their minds through pen and paper. Many criticized Hoover’s policies of the early Depression and praised the Roosevelts’ efforts. Each opinion about the causes and solutions of the Great Depression are based upon economic, racial and social standing in America.
Following the 1890’s, the world began to undergo the first stages of globalization. Countries and peoples, who, until now, were barely connected, now found themselves neighbors in a planet vastly resembling a global village. Despite the idealized image of camaraderie and brotherhood this may seem to suggest, the reality was only discrimination and distrust. Immigration to new lands became a far more difficult affair, as emigrants from different nations came to be viewed as increasingly foreign. In the white-dominated society of the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the only way to truly count oneself as American was to become “white”. For this reason, the idea of race, a socially constructed issue with no real physical basis, has become one of the most defining factors which shape immigration and assimilation in the United States.
The New Deal period has generally - but not unanimously - been seen as a turning point in American politics, with the states relinquishing much of their autonomy, the President acquiring new authority and importance, and the role of government in citizens' lives increasing. The extent to which this was planned by the architect of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt, has been greatly contested, however. Yet, while it is instructive to note the limitations of Roosevelt's leadership, there is not much sense in the claims that the New Deal was haphazard, a jumble of expedient and populist schemes, or as W. Williams has put it, "undirected". FDR had a clear overarching vision of what he wanted to do to America, and was prepared to drive through the structural changes required to achieve this vision.
As mentioned in Ralph Edward’s review An American Dilemma lies in its demonstration of how the mechanism of prejudice operates to disguise the moral conflict in the minds of whites produced by the clash on the social level between the American Creed and anti-Negro practices.
A change in strategy leads to new perspective over certain matters. During FDR’s tenure many new reforms were adopted as part of the New Deal. Some o...
As mentioned in Ralph Edward’s review An American Dilemma lies in its demonstration of how the mechanism of prejudice operates to disguise the moral conflict in the minds of whites produced by the clash on the social level between the American Creed and anti-Negro practices.