Month: May 2010

The Attitude of Slaves Toward White Culture

Posted by

0

Though African-Americans were forced to adjust to white culture during slavery, they chose to adopt elements which fit in with their former way of life in Africa. 

 

Christianity–the religion of the dominant culture–influenced African-Americans. Slaves were especially drawn to its teaching of a community of believers. Christianity gave them a sense of community, something that they could share beyond the common humiliations of slavery. While African-Americans adopted many elements of this new religion, they still retained many of the religious beliefs and practices from their homelands. In Africa they had accepted the notion of one supreme Creator who ruled over other gods, so in America they were able to consider the Christ and Holy Ghost of Christianity as lesser gods. The slave Nat Turner used a combination of the religious beliefs of both cultures as justification for revolting against whites. Though he believed in the God of Christianity, he felt that certain signs in the heavens foretold his destiny to lead slaves in an insurrection. Not only did Turner claim that the Holy Spirit had spoken to him, but also that a solar eclipse sent from heaven was “positive proof, that he would succeed in his undertaking…as the black spot had passed over the sun, so would the blacks pass over the earth.” While many African-Americans fully adopted Christianity, others like Nat Turner clung to a mixture of beliefs which distinguished them from the dominant religion.    

 

Another part of the dominant culture adopted by African-Americans was an Americanized view of the role of the sexes. Although African-Americans were not always able to establish nuclear families, the successful ones regarded the father as the head of the family in imitation of white family structure. This adaptation of the white culture’s view of women as domestic creatures and men as planners or fighters was in stark contrast to the matriarchal society that existed in their homelands.  Slaves copied this model not merely because they admired whites but in order to build a family unit which would allow them to create a sense of identity and belonging. 

 

 Education was a value of white culture which African-Americans used to their advantage. Like religion, education was sometimes used against white culture. A self-taught slave, Nat Turner learned to read the Bible at an early age. Other people recognized his intelligence and assured him of his greatness. In prison he states that, “my master, who belonged to the church, and other religious persons who visited the house…remarked I had too much sense to be raised, and if I was, I would never be of any service to any one as a slave.” Turner was certain that his intelligence made him unfit for slavery. Whites as well as fellow slaves reinforced this impression. Believing he was superior to his situation, Turner tried to change his circumstances. It was not only Turner’s religious beliefs but also his intelligence which was ultimately responsible for his rebellion against the white culture.

 

 

How Religion Shaped American History

Posted by

0

Religion in America has been used to justify unforgivable actions against others. The treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government is one example. In the nineteenth-century, Americans believed that it was their manifest destiny, or God-given duty, to spread their society across the continent. Americans’ godly mission, however, did not require them to care about the Native Americans who were displaced from their lands as whites moved closer. When President Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act with the approval of Congress in 1830, Native Americans were forced to move to land west of the Mississippi. In 1838, the Cherokee Indians journeyed west. Baptist missionary Evan Jones traveled with the Cherokee and described the experience: “The Cherokees are nearly all prisoners…In Georgia, especially, multitudes were allowed no time to take anything with them, except the clothes they had on. Well-furnished houses were left a prey to plunderers, who, like hungry wolves, follow in the train of the captors.” Although the U.S. believed that manifest destiny justified the seizing of land, this action led to the unjust treatment of Native Americans.

Despite the negative consequences of manifest destiny, religion in American has also served as a motivation for reform. Throughout our nation’s history, churches promoted various social reforms. In the mid-twentieth century, for example, African Americans found leaders for the civil rights movement in their congregations. Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. led the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott during which African Americans refused to ride buses after Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat to a white person. He also organized the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to protest the treatment of blacks in white society. Today African American church leaders continue to fight for social justice. Reverend Jesse Jackson consistently brings media attention to issues of civil rights and other causes like welfare reform. Both King and Jackson demonstrate that religion can be a positive force when it is used to uproot injustices in society.  

  

 

Limited Liberty after the English Civil War

Posted by

0

During the English Civil War, various social groups in England hoped to improve their positions in society. After the first round of fighting in 1649 the Leveller movement became popular with small traders, shopkeepers, apprentices, and others who did not have political rights. The Levellers had fought in the civil war and hoped that they would be rewarded by receiving the right to vote. In the Levellers’ view, even men without property or wealth should vote because men were created equal by God. As one Leveller stated, “there is no form of government by divine appointment, but the voice of the people is the voice of God…For the father hath not the power to engage the son but by consent.” Levellers wanted to engage in a father/son relationship with their government in which the government as the father would listen to the sons (the Levellers).

Although a new government was formed under Oliver Cromwell, the Levellers did not benefit from it. Cromwell, the leader of the New Model Army during the war, thought a form of monarchy would be ideal. Bringing order and security to England was more important to Cromwell and his supporters than the wishes of the Levellers. The Protectorate, the monarchical government created under Cromwell, failed to grant voting rights to the Levellers. As the new ruler of England, Cromwell justified his position by saying that the people should not be given too much liberty because they would abuse it.

Like the Levellers, the Diggers also hoped to change their position in English society through government reform. Diggers focused on eliminating private property. They wanted Cromwell’s new government to eliminate the enclosures that drove the poor off their lands. They believed that “the Earth is the Lord’s. not particular men’s who claim a proper interest in it above others.” Diggers felt they had a God-given right to their own land because God made every man equal. They hoped Cromwell’s government would entitle people of all social classes to land.

Contrary to the Diggers’ wishes, the new government did not eliminate private property. The majority of revolutionaries were landowners who opposed giving land to the poor and taking it from the wealthy. Though they claimed to be radicals, the revolutionaries of the English Civil War protected their own conservative interests. The inability of the revolutionary government to provide for all Englishmen prevented the English Civil War from fulfilling its democratic ideals.

 

Huey Long: Champion of the Poor

Posted by

0

When he was eight years old, Huey Long saw a neighbor lose his farm at a sheriff’s auction.  The farmer owed money to a store, and once the farm was sold, the farmer and his family were homeless.  Huey remembered, “The poor farmer was out. I was horrified. I could not understand. It seemed criminal.”

The memory of that day stayed with Huey during his political career as Governor of Louisiana and later as a U.S. Senator. He made few friends in politics, particularly during his time in the Senate from 1930-1933. Huey thought that government in general was too concerned with the interests of Wall Street and thought Roosevelt’s New Deal programs did not do enough for the poor. Though his time in the Senate was short, he made the most of it by speaking out for the underprivileged.

He introduced his program Share Our Wealth to Congress. Instead of letting the majority of the nation’s money reside with a lucky few, Huey wanted a more equal distribution of wealth. The program called for a limit on how much money millionaires could make so that every hard-working American family could have at least $2,000 a year. At the time, that amount of money would be enough for a house and a car. He also wanted every child to have the opportunity to get a good education. As he stated in one of his Senate speeches, “From the worst to the best there would be no limit to opportunity. One might become a millionaire or more. There would be a chance for talent to make a man big, because enough would be floating in the land to give brains a chance to be used.” He emphasized that there was enough education, money, and land in America to make “every man a king.”  

With encouragement from Huey’s speeches and radio addresses, people formed Share the Wealth clubs throughout the U.S. They met to share Long’s ideas with each other. In 1935, more than 7.5 million people were club members. Obviously, the nation still suffered from economic difficulties despite the work of the New Deal.

Although the government did not act immediately on his ideas, many government programs today address issues that concerned Huey Long. These include college financial aid, housing assistance, the Works Progress Administration and food stamps among others.