American

The idea of The Great Gatsby as “The Great American Novel” somewhat connects to what we believe is “American.”  Undeniably, something about this book truly embodies what we think represents America.  This raises an important question: is the definition of “American” truly uniform, or is it far more subjective than we imagine it to be?  It is certainly hard to assess such a definition, since the answer lies within.  That is, what is considered to be “American” lies within each one of us on a subconscious level; we grasp it but cannot fully explain it.  The notion of “American” being a subjective quality also pertains to the topic of immigration.  Immigration has made America a literal melting pot, where numerous cultures are diffused into one.  This idea of a mixture means that each American may not be individually representative of all of American culture, but rather one part of the body, one ingredient in the pot.  One cannot merely describe an archetypal American because there really isn't one.  Perhaps “American” isn't what a person is but rather what a person belongs to, a melting pot.  Part of being American is to not be American, but rather to be something else that is somehow connected to America.  In fact, many immigrants were intent on not becoming American, but simply wanted to be in America.  Nonetheless, these people became American, and their children embraced American culture even more than they did.  Is being in America synonymous with being American?  Perhaps the future holds the answer; to quote The Melting Pot, “the real American has not yet arrived.  He is only in the Crucible…he will be the fusion of all races.”

What Hands Can Do

Although many liberties were lost by the children of indigenous peoples that were sent to boarding schools, there was some merit to the whole experience.  Probably one of the most important things these children gained from their assimilation was literacy.  Literacy, while not completely destroying the native tongue, allowed for better communication and defense against white men for future generations of native peoples.  Although the children had a choice to go with the white men, this choice was heavily influenced by factors outside of their control.  Some of these factors include culture, the effects of such a choice on a child’s reputation within their community, and the fact that the white men showed up at their doors to begin with.  Keeping this in mind, what transpires in Billy Budd puts Captain Vere in an equally sticky situation.  The narrator of the story makes it clear that Captain Vere does not want Billy to die, and that he has complete control over the ship.  Still, he lets Billy Budd die.  Like the Native American children, Billy Budd is innocent; his maiming of John Claggart was not a product of his choice.  Clearly some invisible hand was in the room, apart from Budd, Claggart, and Vere.  Throughout the book, Herman Melville gives us a sense of role play within his story; these things had to happen.  All that the officers on board the ship could see was that Claggart was dead and his blood was drawn by Budd’s fist.  Though Captain Vere could have and would have saved Billy, he did not for the sake of the stability of the crew.  It was clear that, while Billy had no animosity towards any of the crew, the crew no longer wanted him around, and thus, Billy had to die.  In connection to the seemingly unfortunate Native American children, perhaps the assimilation had to happen for the greater good.  The fact remains, what is undeniably unjust and perhaps just plain cruel resulted in literacy, a valuable commodity.  Could the white men have brought literacy and new cultural perspectives to the native peoples in an entirely non-destructive manner?  Yes.  But perhaps the gift of literacy was provided not by white hands but rather an invisible one, and the choices that humans use to block its path only change the route it takes in its deliverance.

Return of John Marshall

The court case of Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. William M’intosh, which was touched on by the previous post, goes beyond its original scope.  At first, the case’s purpose was simply to settle a land dispute.  However, as the case reached the Supreme Court, it ended up becoming a model for the future.  Chief Justice John Marshall describes the Indians as “fierce savages, whose occupation was war.”  He goes on to say that this makes them impossible to govern.  Since they are impossible to govern, according to Marshall, the United States is not actually conquering the Indians.  Instead, they are merely being relieved of their land.  Marshall justifies this by saying that the Indians’ uncivilized nature means that leaving the land in their control is detrimental to the advancement of humanity.  Within a couple paragraphs of the ruling, Marshall has effectively removed the label of “conquest” from the United States’ interactions with the native peoples.  The last post described the implications of using words like “institution” as euphemisms for slavery, and how these labels can fixate entire societies and prevent them from taking action to solve the problem(s) at hand.  Here, there is a converse effect of removing the label.  If pushing native peoples off their land is not considered conquest, which certainly carries with it a negative connotation, it becomes much easier for said actions to increase.  There is no rule or law which prevents them from taking over the native peoples of America.  Without a rule, it can become quite difficult to control peoples’ actions, and, as Marshall says: “Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty.”

The Institution of Slavery

While nitpicking at exact words could be considered a nuisance and an annoyance, there are times when specific word choices can have an effect on history.  This can occur whether or not a specific word choice was inadvertent or not.  Specifically, Abraham Lincoln, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, uses an interesting word to describe slavery.  Lincoln refers to slavery as the “institution” as he argues about the difficulty of its removal.  It’s not just Lincoln, though; plenty of documents from this time period refer to slavery as such.  Perhaps the usage of such a description becomes a roadblock in and of itself in the path of emancipation.  The word “institution” implies a permanent and established policy.  It suggests that slavery has been implanted deep into the ground of society, and that it is ever difficult to get rid of it.  In fact, the way this figure is used seems almost like a euphemism.  It feels like Lincoln is cleverly slithering around saying the “slavery” word, that word that carries with it the shame of the entire nation.  It is this “mentality” that fixates the Union.  Slavery becomes the elephant in the room; everyone knows it’s there and that it’s a problem, but no one wants to tackle the idea of fixing it.  This mentality was present even before Lincoln, however, and is expressed in John Marshall’s court ruling in the case of Johnson & Graham’s Lessee v. William M’intosh.  Mr. Marshall’s ruling refers to the conquest of native peoples, and seems to suggest that conquest, and slavery, have simply existed and will continue to exist.  His closing comment says it all: “Every rule which can be suggested will be found to be attended with great difficulty.”

In Conclusion...

In his account of the Spaniards’ encounters with native peoples, Howard Zinn points out a number of snap judgments that the Spaniards make when observing Indians’ behaviors.  They use each of these conclusions to justify their actions.  For example, Zinn describes how an Indian chief presented Christopher Columbus with a gold mask.  Columbus concluded that the island must be full of such riches as gold.  His desire for gold drove him to draw even more conclusions.  Zinn quotes Columbus, saying that Columbus thinks the Indians are “naïve and so free with their possessions” (3).  Columbus, instead of remarking on how collaborative Indian society is, opts to put a sinister spin on their behavior.  He describes them as naïve, suggesting that they are gullible; thus, he concludes that it would be easy for him to milk gold out of them.  Columbus, in drawing these misinformed conclusions, set the Indians up for the peril that was to come.  His assumption that the island was filled with gold, coupled with his assumptions that the Indians knew where it was and were willing to get it for him, caused him to set the Indians to work, thinking that he would easily take what he wanted.  When the Indians came back with much less gold than expected, the Spaniards’ expectations blurred their vision of the truth.  The result was brutal; Zinn says that the Indians were killed using terrible methods.  Such punishments were imposed until the vast majority of the Arawaks were wiped out.  This is but one instance in history where quick conclusions have had devastating repercussions for people.  Yet, we continue to assume things every day; Euclidian math itself is based on five postulates.  That doesn’t make assumptions bad, but it does make it harder to accept if an assumption is wrong.

Zinn on Columbus; Equiano Revisited

Despite how terrible discrimination was for Africans like Equiano, it did happen to bring about an identity change.  This was a change that did, at least on a subconscious level, involve some degree of personal choice.  In the end, Equiano must decide who he wants to be.  Still, as the previous post discussed, this personal choice was influenced heavily by events far outside the realm of Equiano’s control.  After all, Equiano was involved in a trade that ultimately sealed the rift between two vastly different worlds, Old and New.  A similar amalgamation between choice and fate is seen in Columbus and the Spaniards’ interaction with native peoples.  Howard Zinn, in his account of these early encounters (A People’s History of the United States), pulls an interesting pair of quotes from two different sources.  The first of these is from Samuel Eliot Morison, who describes Columbus as possessing a “superb faith in God” and a “mission as the Christ-bearer to lands beyond the seas” (8).  While the accuracy of the first part of this quote is highly disputable, the latter half does describe the fact that the surface intentions of the king and queen of Spain were to spread religion.  Of course, this mission deviates wildly from the actual actions of Columbus and his men, which is expressed in Zinn’s quote of Bartolomé de las Casas: “our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy” (6).  While it is easy to attribute such works to religion, especially since some sailors claimed to perform these actions in the name of God, it is important that the fruits of human choice are separated from the roots of fate.  This brings about a certain question: was religion destined to spread, and if so, was the massacre of natives necessary for this to occur?

Identity and its Development

A person's identity is an integral part of that particular person.  Identity encapsulates many aspects of a person, including culture, religion, and nationality.  Yet, a property so intrinsic to a person can become changed so dramatically over the course of a lifetime.  The reasons for changes such as these vary greatly; history has provided us with a wide array of examples.  For instance, the Declaration of Independence is a document that marks a huge identity change for the Patriots.  While this change developed over time, the Declaration is the statement that officiated the identity change.  The reason for this identity change stems from political matters.  The Americans wanted liberty, but a specific kind of liberty: governmental liberty.  The Patriots felt they could make economic decisions not only by themselves, but even better and more equally than the British.  Politics is not the only thing that can change an identity, though.  The narrative of Olaudah Equiano provides a good look at the transformation of a young slave boy from an African to a European.  While it can be disputed which culture Equiano actually identifies with more strongly at the end of the narrative, it is clear that Equiano identifies himself as European to some extent.  These changes are brought about largely due to the decisions of other people in the slave trade.  Equiano didn't choose to leave Africa, but over time, he begins to diffuse within the Europeans, even making friends with a few.  Equiano's skin makes him stand out, of course, but does that matter, as long as Equiano identifies himself as European?  Does heredity matter at all in determining personal identity?  Is there anything so biologically ingrained in a person that can never be altered?  History may say there is not.

Discrimination in the Colonial Americas

It is interesting to contrast the forms of discrimination evident within the early history of the Americas.  On one hand, there is Mary Rowlandson's War and Captivity, which details her encounters with Native Americans.  On the other hand sits Thomas Jefferson and his Notes on the State of Virginia.  While these texts refer to two completely different races, Native Americans and African Americans, respectively, they both exhibit to an extent some form of racism, or at least stereotypes based on race.  However, the methods each writer employs in order to justify his or her discrimination are completely different.  Mary Rowlandson, coming from a strong Puritan background, uses religion to back up her ideas.  Many times, Rowlandson refers to the Indians as animals and hell-like creatures.  The Puritans in general attributed the Native Americans' behavior to the times of Eden, before civilization.  The idea of this uncivilized state gave the Puritans justification to taking over the Native American lands.  Thomas Jefferson, who came later in history than Mary Rowlandson, branches off of these religious ideas into science.  Jefferson makes an early attempt at scientific racism, as he uses his observations to explain why he thinks African Americans are inferior to Caucasians.  Despite the rift between religion and science, the ideas of both of these authors stem from discrimination.  Clearly, the idea of judgment based on race or geographic origin carried over from Puritan belief into Yankee thought, but what of religion?  Thomas Jefferson employs only science in order to prove what are essentially the same points as the Puritans' points, and the final product looks just as, if not more, ridiculous.