African Americans and American Indians were two groups that were extensively marginalized for the whole period before the 20th century. During Andrew Jackson’s presidency, Indians were forced to move from the lands they occupied for a lot of time. For example, the most vivid case of such tendencies is the forced deportation of Choctaws (Indian tribes from Southeastern states) from their lands of the Mississippi River. Concerning African Americans, they were freed from slavery during the Reconstruction era in 1865. However, they were economically marginalized and socially discriminated, which made the experience of the American black population oppressive. The late 1890s and early 1900s present the time when African Americans faced segregation and racial oppression, while Indians experienced pressure to their habitual way of life. The struggle for freedom was expressed by the creation of activist movements that fought for minorities’ rights through street demonstrations and formal legal proceedings. The most powerful movement was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) (Takaki 401). This association tried to defend minorities voting rights and segregation through federal courts.
In the United States, it was the case that members of native culture tried to protect their identity, while white Americans opposed such a wish for autonomy. The desire of whites to decide upon the future of subordinated minorities is integral in the solution of the so-called “Indian Question” (Takaki 246). For example, although having peaceful agenda, Francis Walker, the commissioner of Indian Affairs during the 1870s, insisted that the eventual assimilation of Indians should be the ultimate goal of their society placing (Takaki 244). Also, senator Henry Dowes in the 1880s claimed that the tribal system of Indians should be destroyed (Takaki 246). As for real policy implementation, in 1887, the Dawes Act was passed by Congress, which demanded the distribution of Native Inidans’ reservation lands among individual Native Americans (Takaki 246). The result of this policy was that through time the territories that initially were given to Native Americans then were transferred to white farmers (Takaki 248). Although Indians tried to oppose this practice by participating in court proceedings, it did not drastically help them achieve satisfactory policies.
The migration of the black population to the North is the characteristic feature of the start of the 20th century. By 1930, there was already approximately two million African America that moved to the North (Takaki 384). One of the integral reasons for migration was the huge dependency of Black Americans on the white landlords because of the sharecropping arrangements in the farming, which enslaved blacks by debts (Takaki 379). In contrast, the northern states experienced a reduction in migration flows from Europe (Takaki 380). As a result, factory managers searching for new labor recruited African Americans from the South for a decent salary (Takaki 380). However, the white community of the North did not welcome the huge influx of African Americans in their cities. Firstly, newspapers greatly condemned blacks for their laziness and carelessness, creating a disadvantageous image of them among the population (Takaki 387). Secondly, white residents created groups like the Hyde Park Improvement Protective Club, which fought for restrictions for blacks to rent rooms in white blocks (Takaki 387). Overall, blacks faced striking opposition from white residents, which was slightly mitigated after the end of the First World War.
Finally, it is useful to trace African Americans’ and Inidians’ experiences during the time of the Great Depression and Roosevelt’s New Deal. The Great Depression was the huge economic downturn during the 1930s, which led to extensive unemployment and poverty in the United States. Theodor Roosevelt’s policy to counter this financial crisis was called the New Deal and presented a series of economic reforms that increased the federal government’s role in the US economy. Takaki argues that the state’s efforts favored white residents, while minorities did not get enough benefits from recovery plans (401). For example, a black community named the National Recovery Administration, which was created to solve issues of economic crisis, as the “Negro Removal Act” (Takaki 401). As for Indians, John Collier, Roosevelt’s new commissioner of Indian affairs, pursued the policy of the Indians New Deal, which abolished allotment and gave Indians power to decide how to organize their lives (Takaki 251). Such reforms towards minorities were not welcomed by a white population which provoked a new wave of racism against Native Americans.
The end of the 19th century was the time when new waves of migration took place. Mainly, it was immigrants from Japan, Russia, and Mexico. While migration from Mexico was common during previous decades, mass migration from Russia, Japan, Italy, Greece, Poland, and Hungary was something new for the American continent (Crawford 2). One of the reasons for that was the closing of the frontier in the 1890s (Takaki 292). However, one of the integral reasons for migration was the desire to earn money.
In the context of this inter-century migration, the essay will discuss migration from Japan and Russia. Migrants from Japan moved to the US because of external factors (Takaki 292). The very high level of taxation after the Meiji Restoration made Japanese farmers unable to pay the taxes demanded by the government (Takaki 292). This resulted in the complete bankruptcy of Japanese farmers and the desire to move from such a disadvantageous place. The expectations for a better life and political motives (migration of Russian anarchists) were the reason for the migration of Jews and Russians from the Russian Empire during the 1890s-1900s (Takaki 327). In the future, the level of migration from Russia will increase after the October Revolution and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin. Takaki indicated the similar with Japan reason for Mexicans: “like the Japanese immigrants who were arriving about the same time, Mexicans saw America as a land of opportunity” (356). However, migration for Mexicans was easier because of the long border between the US and Mexico.
Migrants from these three countries were pushed to the US because of external factors and their desire to improve their life. These people tried to maximize profits from their skills, but American society did not allow them any significant promotion through the career. Analyzing a new wave of migration from the lens of the federal government, they considered new migrants less developed and skilled than previous waves (Crawford 2). That view pushed the government to start an “Americanisation campaign” with the desire to change migrants’ cultural habits (Crawford 2). Thus, the unfriendliness of Americans to newcomers was expressed in discrimination and the creation of restrictions towards them.
After arriving at the new place, migrants tried to create their own communities with specific cultural and linguistic elements. For example, in their newly formed communities, Mexicans celebrated national holidays like Mexican Independence Day, confessed a special type of Mexican Catholicism, and maintained their cultural identity through traditional festivals and dancing (Takaki 373-374). Russian migrants also wanted to preserve their national identity, but the American environment did not allow them to do it. Cultural and national identity was blurred in the context of many nations and ethnicities living in the US. At the same time, the white American population strikingly opposed newly arrived migrants. The attitudes of nativism gained popularity in the mid-1880s and triumphed with the adoption of the Immigration Act in 1924 (Daniels 265). Any attempts of migrants to establish themselves were faced with striking opposition from white Americans whose attitudes inspired the government to restrict migrants’ way of life, demanding more assimilation.
Prompt #3
Nativism was a response of white Americans to the significant influx of immigrants during the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century. Although nativist sentiments were present in the American society for the whole existence of the state, they intensified through time (Daniels 265). Spickard defines nativism as “intense opposition to an internal minority on the ground of its foreign (i.e., ‘un-American’) connections” (121). However, American nativism changed through time and overcame different stages in its development.
The nativism of the mid-19th century and of the 1900s is quite different in its form. In the mid-19th century, the nativism movement was portrayed as anti-Catholic (Spickards 123). It was directed mainly to Irish Catholics and partly to German Catholics (Daniels 265). The further stage was anti-Asian nativism, which was expressed in opposition to Chinese and Japanese immigration (Daniels 265). It was mainly connected to the strikingly different cultures and the appearance of Asian people, which made white Americans being afraid of the preservation of their cultural code. The nativism intensified during the third stage called anti-all nativism (Daniels 265). The main reason was the great number of immigrants who arrived in the US during these two decades, from the 1890s to the 1900s. According to Daniels, by 1920, there were 36 million immigrants in the US, which constituted the third of all American population (Daniels 274-275). The fear of such “immigrant invasion” was the reason for the great intensification of the Nativism movement in the masses and more restrictive policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act adopted in Congress.
The white Americans tried to protect their positioning in society by the creation of restrictive policies towards minorities. First of all, Congress tried to suspend migration from the regions that were active in it. For example, the Chinese Exclusion Act adopted in 1882 restricted migration from China for ten years and was extended twice in 1892 and 1902 (Daniels 271). Besides, white Americans exercised the practice of creating specific places where immigrants were concentrated for a time for the federal government to decide their future. In 1892, federal authorities opened an immigration reception center on Ellis Island, which was used as a detention center for immigrants who were refused admittance (Daniels 273). The practices listed here are only a small part of cases that demonstrate the position of superiority maintained by white Americans. The alleged economic, social, and political threats were eliminated through repressive federal acts and authoritarian kinds of decisions.
In the 19th century, there were crucial prerequisites that defined Americans and distinguished them from non-American. First of all, the real American needed to be white (Spickard 123). Also, Protestantism was also the integral factor of real Americans in the 19th century (Spickard 123). These two factors excluded non-white people like Chinese, Mexicans, Japanese, and Catholics from Ireland and Germany. The last step is that real Americans shared the same ideology of American Republicanism, which proclaimed the core values of US democracy (Spickard 122). It was democracy not for all nations of the American continent but for white Americans who distinguished themselves on racial and religious factors. Actually, there was no fundamental book or public figure that defined who is actually an American. In fact, this definition based primarily on race was a by-product of the population’s concern about their economic positioning and workplace. American citizens did not want the influx of immigrants that would occupy their positions at work.
Even in modern times, American citizens can witness the manifestation of modern American nativism. Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 US presidential elections demonstrated the deep root feelings of many Americans. Trump embraced the nativist worldview based on the fear of migrants’ propensity to crime and the impossibility to assimilate. This nativist rhetoric found the response in many white Americans, and Trump won the elections in 2016. However, the American population overcame the political deception of Trump’s racist rhetoric and did not elect him in 2020. This change brought a lot of hope that the US transformed its nature to a more inclusive and tolerant nature.
Works Cited
Crawford, James. Cycles of Nativism in U.S. History. National Immigration Forum, 2001.
Daniels, Roger. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. Harper Perennial, 2002.
Spickard, Paul. Almost All Aliens: Immigration, Race, and Colonialism in American History and Identity. Routledge, 2007.
Takaki, Ronald. A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. eBookIt.com, 2012.