rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 8:51:25 GMT -7
You're on board, but only if you put it in the perspective of the experience of an 18th century mind.
Education was the realm of those with money, not the common man.
Another factor was religious or philosophic evolution. The learned class was questioning the established order for class in society. They struggled with how God could have meant for some to be anointed to rule and others to serve. They were seeing contradictions in their religion and their world.
The key to understanding how big a leap of faith this experiment really was is to forget everything you know about science, government, daily life etc. that came after 1700 or so.[/quote]
forget everything learned since? If I think in the context suggested, where am I? I am female. The rich were educated, but by the standards of the time, I would still be excluded
another dimension: values and their impact on context...
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 9:36:53 GMT -7
okay, the gender reference was admittedly a cheap shot, but I think there's a grain of relevance there regardless.....
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 26, 2008 9:37:12 GMT -7
quote] forget everything learned since? If I think in the context suggested, where am I? I am female. The rich were educated, but by the standards of the time, I would still be excluded
another dimension: values and their impact on context...Woman, in the big picture were excluded, but on the micro level were actually very influencial at all class levels. James Madison's wife I believe it was wrote him a letter during the Constitutional Convention warning him not to forget the ladies (which he obviously failed to heed). Her words represented a view that even the woman of this ear were participating in the debate defining equality and new thinking about natural rights. In other examples told and untold by history woman played an active role in this revolution and experiment. In the many mini-revolts that followed the revolution woman were organizers and participants. For example there was ac coffee party as well as a tea party. In this case woman stormed a storehouse and took the coffee to defy a tax they felt unjust. The colony of Rhode Island (?) was basically founded by Anne Hutchinson. Just like the men, women were divided in the idea of "liberty" and societal roles. Woman of the era were great home chemist - they developed some of the brewing techniques, etc. They were the first home medics, it was not until medicine engage technology that woman began to be cut out of the medical profession. The rules that bound woman as chattle also liberated them in some areas because of the ideal pedistal they were awarded in the minds of men. So the myth of the totally subjugated woman rests on a solid foundation, but as with the forward thinking and experimenting men, what happened at this time with woman set the stage for future improvements, set the stage for the role of woman in abolitionism, sufferage movement and other later events. You see, the experiment was a slippery slope, because of the logical developments and expansion of the very simply ideal of "all men are created equal." The contradictions between the ideal and the reality could no longer be ignored once the goal was articulated and spread.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 19:30:13 GMT -7
yes, on the micro level they were always there, and undervalued as a driving force behind our ability to establish and reinforce the tennets of democracy
I take issue with this: "the rules that bound women as chattel aslo liberated them in some areas because of the ideal pedestal they were awarded in the minds of men"
hate to get off on a tangent, but please clarify?
I know of no woman off-hand who was at once "liberated" and idealized; early feminists and female authors struggled mightily with this dichotomy
|
|
|
Post by snill on Dec 26, 2008 20:33:26 GMT -7
yes, on the micro level they were always there, and undervalued as a driving force behind our ability to establish and reinforce the tennets of democracy
I take issue with this: "the rules that bound women as chattel aslo liberated them in some areas because of the ideal pedestal they were awarded in the minds of men"
hate to get off on a tangent, but please clarify?
I know of no woman off-hand who was at once "liberated" and idealized; early feminists and female authors struggled mightily with this dichotomy There is a reason early feminists and femal authors struggled with this dichotomy - their contemporaries included many women who rejected the tenents on feminism, as is true to this day. This is not an unusual struggle for any issue in history - you say tomato I say tomahto. Think of the philosophy of George Washington Carver, vs. Marcus Garvey in race relations. To the feminist, women who rejected changes to the role and status of woman were ill informed or cowed by their men. To the non-feminist the feminist were throwing away a good arrangement. The beliefs and convictions of both sides were strongly held - this was even true in your life time.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 20:49:48 GMT -7
that's not the only reason, snil
think about what you're saying...the ideal pedestal they were awarded in the minds of men?
if you are on a pedestal, how are you contributing? the rules that bound women also liberated them? How? They had to be arrested before they were "liberated"; the were property before they were liberated
when you are chattel, you aren't "on a pedestal". you are property, a concrete representatioin of ownership by another human being
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 20:59:57 GMT -7
for the record, the women I was referring to were literary figures, in fairness, many from different ages
they struggled with their "place" in society, just as some do now. Sorry to jack the thread, but I'm looking at it from a very different perspective. The women I was referring to were educated and intelligent, they didn't like the fact that they were expected to step aside once technology was developed in medicine
or anywhere else, for that matter.
I was considering the impact of values at the time because I was trying to imagine what it must have been like to be left out of so much, simply because of a belief system which perpetuated the notion that women didn't belong where men did
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 26, 2008 21:29:00 GMT -7
okay, sorry
that aside for the moment, the elite established this experiment; they developed a living document with which the country could be governed, and within the document itself, the capacity for growth
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 27, 2008 8:31:52 GMT -7
okay, sorry
that aside for the moment, the elite established this experiment; they developed a living document with which the country could be governed, and within the document itself, the capacity for growth Yes - the devil was in the details. They pretty much spelled out the ideals in the flowery language - the dream, the Utopian vision, the long term hope if you will. In the pragmatic wording you find the recognition that "we are not there yet". We will never really know how strongly ALL of them felt the dream of totally equality for all (no race, sex or social distinctions recognized), but we know all shared some belief that the goal was correct and attainable. The beauty of what they devised was that these were not just philosophers recounting a world view of fiction, these were the actual formers of a country and political system that would leap off the pages of their documents and be implemented. The leap from philosophy to an implemented ideology, is what made possible all the changes that followed. Simply articulating the ideals, in a governing document, made possible the evolutionary (Marbury v. Madison, Missouri/Maine compromise...)and at time revolutionary (Civil War, Labor Movement, Woman's sufferage...) march toward the ideal inevitable. This is what makes (IMHO) the U.S. uniques of all the countries of the world. The U.S. is a nation founded upon an ideal view of human kind and its potential for self government. Its founding did not ignore the realities of its time, but built a system that adapts, that had built in and recognized compromises for the current date, and a method for resolving the compromises over time. It is not a country founded upon the ties of a single national identity in the traditional sense of ethnic homogeneity, but of an homogeneity of ideals. To this day we are still playing out the experiment, still debating issues, still making compromises, still defining "equality". It is an experiment without end.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 28, 2008 9:44:35 GMT -7
I agree with this so far
now, as to "cultural identity" within the "experiment"?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 28, 2008 9:50:15 GMT -7
I agree with this so far now, as to "cultural identity" within the "experiment"? You will have to expand on your question.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 28, 2008 10:09:20 GMT -7
who are we?
I hear it all the time...I hear folks define themselves by culture, by nationality, etc....
not done with the gender issues, by the way...just setting them aside for the time being...I have lots of questions there too
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 28, 2008 10:11:08 GMT -7
is this still a "melting pot"? was it ever-really?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 29, 2008 9:24:08 GMT -7
is this still a "melting pot"? was it ever-really? Interesting questions. I can only speculate, I am sure there are cultural anthropologist who have written extensively on this topic, but I have not really studied the question so I will just respond from my own view of history. And this will be very high level at first. First - why was the term "Melting Pot" ever necessary? I think it begins with the whole issue we have already discussed, the "Revolution" based upon an ideal, rather than an out and out traditional class based or ethnic based revolt. The whole concept of building a new nation based on the idea of self-government and a "new" view of the rights of the common man, natural rights etc. almost creates the need for those revolutionaries, and new citizens of this experiment if you will, to drop the concept of their former homelands and assume a new national identity - Americans. Now did they drop everything? Of course not, the ingrained national animosities and prejudices remained. Those from France still looked down on the British and visa Versa, same with any group you want to discuss. Prejudice against Jews was still rampant, remember this was an age of religiosity as well - though humanistic views were gaining ground. Blacks were still, like Indians, savages. What they were mostly dropping was the idea of Royal Rule by divine right, while simultaneously still recognizing social distinctions, though in a growing manner focusing not on birth right, but growing capital/economic distinctions. Is it still a melting pot? Was it ever?My gut says yes to both. But, as with any "melting process", there are always lumps. Those lumps are usually the first and possibly parts of the second generation of immigrants. Assimilation is never complete, but interestingly throughout history, first generation immigrants for a large degree, take on the most adamant desire to "become Americans". In a general sense they also are vocal about their desire when confronted by acts denying them their new rights, in many ways. A lot of factors go into how a person trys to assimilate, or if they even try. Reasons including why they came to this country, their financial conditions when they come, their reception when they get her, the time in history that they come. At the same time - I would speculate, they also wish to retain their cultural values, such as family roles, role of woman, pride in their homelands past accomplishments. They may have come to America because of current "failures" or conditions in their home lands - I am thinking primarily of the type of government they fled, or their own conditions in that country (for example repression of their sub-culture, or social class in the homeland). Again a lot depends on why they came. The primary "glue" if you will that binds these immigrant groups to "America" is their desire to chase the experiment - to live somewhere where the ideal of equality as a natural right is both the goal and the purpose of the government.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 29, 2008 10:06:23 GMT -7
Just found this book on "The Melting Pot" see what you did - added to my reading list. www.manhattan-institute.org/meltingpot/NEW: REINVENTING THE MELTING POT The New Immigrants and What It Means To Be American Basic Books, Paperback Edition, November 2004 Basic Books, Hardcover Edition, February 2004 Edited by Tamar Jacoby Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Does the melting pot still work? Should it? What does it mean to become an American in an era of globalization, the internet, identity politics, ethnic niche advertising and a TV remote with a hundred or more different channels? Led by Tamar Jacoby, twenty-one of the writers who have thought longest and hardest about immigration come together around a surprising consensus: yes, immigrant absorption still works—and given the number of newcomers arriving today, the nation’s future depends on it. But that doesn’t mean assimilation has to look or feel like a 1950s stereotype. It need not be incompatible with ethnic identity—and we as a nation need to find new ways to talk about and encourage becoming American. The stakes could hardly be higher. One in nine Americans is an immigrant. Nearly one-fifth of U.S. residents speak a language other than English at home. The number of foreign-born Americans—33 million and growing—now exceeds the entire population of Canada. And in the wake of 9/11, with the nation as a whole thinking harder than ever before about what it means to be American, it couldn’t be more important to help these newcomers find a way to fit in. Hailing from across the ideological spectrum, the contributors to REINVENTING THE MELTING POT include distinguished social scientists, prize-winning journalists and fiction-writers—thinkers like Nathan Glazer, Herbert Gans, John McWhorter, Michael Barone, Pete Hamill and Stanley Crouch. They consider every aspect of the issue: from how today's new arrivals are different than yesterday's to how immigrant businesses are faring in the Houston suburbs. Yet running through their essays is a single, common theme: although ethnicity plays a more important role now than ever before, today's newcomers can and will become Americans and enrich our national life—reinventing the melting pot and reminding us all just what it is we have in common. Tamar Jacoby is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of Someone Else's House: America's Unfinished Struggle for Integration. Formerly with The New York Times and Newsweek, she writes regularly for The Wall Street Journal, The Weekly Standard, Commentary and other publications. She lives in Montclair, New Jersey. Acclaim: "...a thoughtful, provocative collection of essays that reconsiders and ultimately attempts to reinvent the traditional myth of the American melting pot." —Booklist "...this important book shows that there is nothing more American than a debate over what it means to be an American." —Wall Street Journal
|
|