- The two main centers from which people immigrated to America
(Britain and the Iberian Peninsula) were vastly different
and cultivated major differences in the cultures of these
people, differences that only intensified when these people
immigrated to America. As Samuel Eisenstadt explains, Spain
and Portugal were characterized by an insistence on the
uprooting of all sectarian groups, a prohibition against
points of view that did not conform to Church dogma, and
a great stress on hierarchy. The culture that Anglo Americans
brought with them and developed allowed and facilitated
the existence of multiple different religions alongside
the British government and the Anglican Church, which only
played a secondary role. The government in Latin America,
in contrast, did not permit self-government on any level
higher than the municipal government. As opposed to the
Anglo American colonists who acquired for themselves a status
of aristocracy or gentry, and ran most public affairs in
freedom, the Latin American colonists were generally adventurers
or people seeking advancement in the colonial administration
and Catholic Church, both of which played an important role.
In the area that became the US, the Anglo American colonists
developed their own culture, though in the more northern
area that became Canada, the colonists sufficed with adopting
European culture. The institution of Spanish-Portuguese
hierarchy became more entrenched in Latin America than it
had in the colonists' country of origin. Eisenstadt doesn't
offer an explanation for this last phenomenon, just as he
doesn't explain the reason why independent culture developed
in the US but not in Canada. Regarding the issue of hierarchy
in Latin America, presumably Eisenstadt doesn't relate to
it explicitly because it is clear to him that the existence
of Indians and then Black slaves in Latin America naturally
prompted a particular emphasis on hierarchy, as a means
of allowing the colonists to express the supremacy of their
culture and government over that of the Indians and slaves.
As for the cultural difference between the US and Canada,
this relates to a lack of political initiative on the part
of the French Canadians, a quality that stemmed from Catholic
doctrine that imposes no personal religious responsibility,
as does Protestantism, but rather revolves around the priest
and Pope. Ostensibly, the high percentage of French Catholics
in Canada shaped the Canadian culture. Eisenstadt notes
that there were areas in Latin America where there was some
inclination toward democracy, such as Argentina, Uruguay,
and Brazil, but the inclination was weak, and considered
more of a problem than a solution. In general, Eisenstadt
claims, that cultural differences within Latin America led
to a redesign of local customs, languages, and communities,
and a blurring of distinctions between the colonists and
the natives, while differences between local culture and
that of the native countries caused serious tensions. This
stands to reason since the Latin American colonist had far
greater association with local customs, than with those
from his country of origin. Eisenstadt claims that in the
US, in contrast to Latin America and also Canada, there
was a strong emphasis on equality and on the objectionable
nature of hierarchy. Eisenstadt doesn't explain the reason
for this, but it seems relatively self-evident. Once the
colonists annihilated the Indians, there was no one to learn
the principle of hierarchy from, and in any case there was
no longer a multicultural multiracial population in which
to establish this hierarchy. Eisenstadt claims that this
lack of hierarchy manifested itself, among other ways, in
the absence of an official religion. An official religion
is declared only when a hierarchy exists, in order to establish
a hierarchy also among the different religions. In this,
Eisenstadt makes a serious error, as a dominant religion
did develop in the US, though not from the beginning but
rather from the end of the 19th century - namely the civil
religion. Only this religion is permitted to participate
in the political realm, while all other religions were expected
to remain separate from issues of the State. The Anglo-Americans
needed to develop a new religion that they hadn't brought
or adapted from Europe, or learned from their Latin American
brothers. This need didn't exist before America declared
its independence from Britain. It stemmed from the very
fact, that until the eve of their independence, American
colonists were part of the British nation, loyal British
subjects, who derived their sense of nationalism from British
history and tradition, and who had no interest in altering
this situation. The American colonists did not revolt because
they felt separate and distinct from Britain. They revolted
for economic reasons, because of a British fundamental principle
that there is no taxation without representation, and American
colonists did not have representatives in the British Parliament.
Upon achieving independence, the colonists were like a ship
without a sail - they had won independence from their own
nation. The Anglo American colonists needed to forge for
themselves a new nationality that would unite their ranks
and unite and distinguish them from their British brethren
across the sea. Thus, they couldn't adopt Protestantism
as a civil religion for two reasons, neither one corresponding
to Eisenstadt's claim: 1. Protestantism was the backbone
of the British nation. 2. Protestantism was not the religion
of the new immigrants, who were not necessarily British.
Nonetheless, it was difficult to declare secularism the
new State religion, when almost all Anglo-Americans were
religious people. Thus at the end of the 19th century, a
fundamental change took place in the US. Until then students
in the public school system had Bible class daily, a custom
that was at the base of Protestantism. At the end of the
19th century, court rulings were passed that prohibited
the reading of the Bible in public schools. For the purposes
of this book, this fact along with the general background
outlined until this point are sufficient to demonstrate
that the American civil religion preserved a fundamental
monotheistic faith, while denying its specific agents any
rights to participate in the elections or in any government
role, in a religious role and in the name of religion. A
Protestant, Jew, or Catholic that runs for office does not
do so in the name of his religion, but in the context of
the American civil religion that is at the heart of Anglo-American
nationalism. This was the new hierarchy that Anglo Americans
created. A separate question is whether Anglo Americans
created a cultural motif of strong central government that
was not intended by the early colonists. Civil religion
was promoted by the Anglo American nation both by the citizens
themselves in order to develop their culture by strengthening
their sense of nationalism, and by the government - since
the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the reading of the
Bible in public schools was an act of the central government.
The central government again took a strong position regarding
the integration of Blacks and discrimination in the Supreme
Court case of Brown vs. Board of Education, as it did in
the detainment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and again
recently in the black out in the media of details of the
military action against the Taliban and Bin Ladin. The latter
decision may have been supported by public opinion and enjoyed
the cooperation and patriotic self-imposed restraints of
the media, but it was nevertheless an act of the central
government. We witnessed the same phenomenon that Renquist
describes during the American Civil War when the right of
habeas corpus was temporarily suspended. According to Eisenstadt's
description, Anglo-Americans emphasized acquisitiveness
alongside democratic rights This focus resulted in a difference
in material wealth between Anglo Americans and Latin Americans,
in the significant disparity between US economic success
and its sisters south of it, and even partially in the political
unrest in Latin America. There are other factors at play
here too, however, in particular the trust in one's fellow
man that characterizes Latin American society, that is at
the basis of the institution of patronage, and that is essentially
lacking in Anglo American society. Eisenstadt, in analyzing
Anglo American culture, speaks about the elimination of
any need for hierarchy in the relationship between the government
and the governed, since the individual has access - using
democratic tools - to the government. He also refers to
the phenomenon of weak government found among Anglo-Americans.
While he is definitely correct in his assessment that the
American government in its early days and in colonial days
was weak, this trend was true also in Latin America. If
not for this fact, the Spanish government would never have
needed all the local patrons or the oligarchies it fostered
in order that they help enforce the rule of government in
areas not under the domination of the Spanish colonial government.
Strong government is characteristic of modern democratic
nations. None of the kings in Europe were able to achieve
control over the private lives of their subjects. It is
democracy that made government strong. In Latin America
today, there appears to be no strong government - the Brazilian
government is incapable of enforcing public order throughout
greater Brazil, and a similar situation exists also in relatively
small Latin American countries. It seems that Eisenstadt
is not referring to a government that imposes its will and
laws in every single place under its jurisdiction, but rather
to its aggressiveness and resoluteness. The American government
was aggressive and resolute in its treatment of the Indians,
and quite naturally solicitous and considerate of those
upon whom the government depended - the voters. This is
not a phenomenon that was unique to Anglo Americans, but
rather one common in all interdependent societal relations.
In the entirely theoretical scenario that true democracy
were established in Latin America, it is probable that the
government would be considerate of its citizens. Until today,
wealthy individuals in Latin America manage quite well to
have influence over the government, often with no need for
any middleman, union, or party, to mediate between them
and the government. The situation in the US is quite similar
with the affluent exerting their influence over the politicians
in exchange for bankrolling their election campaigns. Regarding
this point though, Eisenstadt adds that the hierarchy that
operates in Latin America led to presidential type regimes,
in which the president is a quasi father figure who is served
by a central bureaucracy. In this respect, Latin America
and the US resemble each other considerably, since also
in the US the presidency is a prominent institution. The
difference is that the US constitution established checks
and balances that limit the president's powers. It was inevitable
that after years of being ruled by a king - whether Spanish,
Portuguese, or British, that Americans would establish a
presidency in their country too. In the US, however, where
there was no underlying culture of faith in man, a system
of checks and balances was created. Therefore, the correlation
between the institution of hierarchy and the system of government
in Latin America is tenuous and questionable. Eisenstadt
claims that the equality that was a legacy of the Puritans
influenced societal interrelations, which in turn had an
affect on public and private lives, family and places of
work, and on the entire concept of equal citizenship. In
Latin America, in contrast, absolute hierarchic principles
existed side by side with a blurring of societal distinctions,
an inconsistency that led to a legislative-formal blurring
too. On the surface everything is equal while in essence,
everything is hierarchic - a reality that creates an irreconcilable
tension in Latin America. According to this description,
a certain hypocrisy exists then in Latin America that contrasts
with an Anglo-American genuineness, a Latin American double
talk vs. Anglo-American sincerity. This description is not
consistent, however, with American policies toward the Indians
and toward the Blacks until the Civil War and even after.
Utilitarianism does not always coincide with honesty, just
as patronage relations that are based on trust sometimes
are connected to sincerity, to the diametric opposite of
the 'two facedness' that Eisenstadt attributes to the Latin
Americans. The Latin Americans have claimed repeatedly,
especially in their philosophy and literature, that they
feel spiritually superior to the Anglo-Americans. In fact,
Eisenstadt confirms that the racial issue in the US, since
it is hierarchic by nature, creates a problem for the ideal
of equality. In Brazil, however, ethnic relations pertain
to a man's personal sphere, while in the public sphere,
Brazilian heritage is viewed as a story of three morally
equal races that together create the Brazilian nature. Brazil,
consequently, can possess characteristically White, Black,
and even Indian traits all at the same time - African rhythm
and spirit together with Indian obstinacy and ties to nature,
along with White language and government institutions. It
combines wholeness, inclusiveness, and hierarchy. Racial
ideology is just one of its components. The situation in
North America stands in marked contrast to this fusion of
races that characterizes Latin America. The Black and Latin
American must adopt the Anglo American culture if he wishes
to succeed in the US. Everyone ultimately learns to play
by the rules that were written by the "Anglo Americans",
whether out of necessity (in political life), out of expediency
(in economic life), or as a means of integrating into and
being accepted by American society (in leisure). A true
look at Latin America and Anglo America must make us question
whether the representation of Latin America as a symbol
of a hierarchic dictatorship and the US as a symbol of freedom,
liberalism, and openness, isn't a reversal of the reality
in these countries.
