- The Indians in the US - According to Hertz's description,
Anglo-Americans slaughtered the Indians as a matter of policy,
stole their land, sometimes through legal sophistry. The
1987 Dawes Severalty Act, for example, professed to be an
agricultural reform, whose goal was to distribute small
plots of land to individual Indians at the expense of the
general tribe's land, but in light of Indian apparent apathy,
in actuality allowed the theft of Indian land and its distribution
to white farmers. The European immigrant was not accustomed
to problems of discrimination in his native country, while
the British immigrant had learned about equality and about
treating everyone equitably. European immigrants-colonists
of other continents did not, as a matter of policy, engage
in racial genocide. Yet in America, in contrast to other
settled countries, and certainly as opposed to Latin America,
a policy of appropriation of land through slaughter of the
Indians was adopted. Even those who were not killed were
isolated in closed reserves - all so as not to include the
Indians within the egalitarian white society. It was a hypocritical
racist hierarchic policy. Hertz claims that European ideologies
do not deal with races, but immigrants from a feudal world
needed to confront the issue of a non-Western mother, the
different classes of Indians and Blacks. The Anglo American
solution during the period of slavery was to exclude Blacks
from the human race, thus allowing the existence of 'liberal
slavery'. Hertz doesn't explain, however, why this was the
Anglo American solution to the Indian 'problem, while in
Latin America, the attitudes and policies towards Indians
that developed were entirely different. He doesn't offer
reasons; he simply describes the facts. He writes that while
many Indians were in fact killed in Brazil, that was a function
of a religious mission to eradicate idol worshipers, rather
than an act of racial discrimination. Indians who were not
exterminated in Brazil and other Latin American countries
integrated into the societies there and partially assimilated.
Though the immigrants-settlers related to them according
to the hierarchic system that was typical of their culture,
they - ultimately - admitted the Indians into the general
society. Indians and Blacks in Latin America - In contrast
to the liberal hypocrisy reflected in North America's liberal
society's refusal to accept certain groups within its midst,
it emerges from the discussion until this point that Latin
American society admitted all Christians and everyone who
adopted Latin culture and joined it, without distinctions
of race or ethnicity - through a process of wars and upheavals.
The question is why Latin-Catholics accepted within their
midst whoever embraced their principals (cultural and/or
religious) while the Protestant Anglo-Americans (the founders
and those who came after them) adopted a different path,
including many who were not true Anglo-American Protestants,
even Jews - but only as long as they were of white European
ancestry. All these who were assimilated into this culture
adopted the political culture of the Anglo-American Protestant
founders, and for the purposes of this discussion, they
too will be called Anglo-Americans. Even if they were not
Protestant, they accepted political principles that were
derived in part from the Protestant religion, such as individualism,
human liberties and rights including every person's right
to a democratic republican government that represents him
and his interests. This Anglo-American society sought to
create a single Anglo-American nation.Latin American society,
in contrast, strove to create numerous national identities,
according to the number of Latin American countries. The
question is what fundamental difference between Protestant
Anglo-American society and Latin American society resulted
in the North American annihilation of the Indians and the
isolation of the ones that remained in remote reserves,
on one hand, and Latin American assimilation of the Indians
in every Latin American country, and their tolerant, sometimes
even positive attitude toward intermarriage? The lack of
political equality between North American Indians living
on reserves and other US citizens starkly manifests itself
in the limitation of their right to vote to presidential,
and not congressional elections. The Indians remain outsiders
in the Anglo-American political society. Blacks in the US
- Before endeavoring to answer the question raised above,
this chapter will examine the differences between treatment
of Indians and Blacks in the US. The Anglo-American liberal
was willing to absorb a limited amount of Blacks that would
neither critically change the nature of his society nor
harm his economic interests. Thus North American states
had no particular problem with the Blacks who lived there,
and laws were even passed in those states regarding the
annulment of slavery. In Southern states, however, whose
economy was built on the forced unpaid labor of Black slaves,
there was bitter public controversy over the idea of prohibiting
slavery. At the time the constitution was written, Southern
representatives managed to have their slaves count for 2/3
of a person for the purposes of determining population for
state representation in Congress, even though slaves did
not possess the right to vote. It was also decided that
no changes would be allowed in the slavery laws for twenty
years. Over 80 years passed, and still slavery in the South
had not been annulled, until the Dred Scott case rocked
the country. Dred Scott was a slave who had moved to a Northern
state and been freed by his master, yet he insisted that
legally he was a free man even without his former master's
consent. The US Supreme Court of the time - ultra-conservative
and presided over by a Southerner - ruled that a slave is
to be considered property, not a human being, and thus possessing
no more rights than a beast to petition the court. This
racially discriminatory decision provoked great public outrage
that did not subside until after the end of the Civil War,
that broke out shortly after. Why is the American Civil
War considered the greatest upheaval in American history?
Of course, the enormous number of casualties and the fact
that civil wars are always more traumatic to a nation than
external wars had a lot to with the severity of this trauma.
Yet also significant - was that in addition to the humiliation
and defeat that the South suffered, they were also forced
to politically absorb the Blacks into their midst. Approximately
100 years later, the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme
Court decision also required them to integrate their schools,
but this chapter will deal with the trauma experienced by
the generation of the Civil War. The enforced changes were
so disturbing because they forced Southerners to accept
into their midst people they considered not only foreign
but strange - people whose culture and appearance were different,
even if not their religion, people who despite the legal
ruling that made them part of the "family" were
really not family. The trauma the South experienced is comparable
to the trauma that would be experienced in Israel if Jews
were forced to accept Palestinians as part of their nation
(even if Palestinians would convert to Judaism), instead
of maintaining distinct national entities. White Anglo-American's
slaves were suddenly - from the political perspective, and
later from a social standpoint - transformed into part of
the White national entity. This radical social change combined
with the devastation it wreaked on the South's economy completely
shook up the internal structure of Southern society. An
additional change was the transference of loyalty to the
State to ethnic alliances; in both Northern and Southern
states in the US primary allegiance was shown to people
of the same ethnic origin.To summarize, it appears that
the fundamental Anglo-American attitude towards Blacks for
the most part resembled its attitude towards the Indians,
though they ultimately played themselves out differently.
The Blacks never fought against the Anglo Americans; they
couldn't be forced into reserves - there was nowhere to
remove them to (though the US returned those who wished
to go to Africa, thereby creating Liberia). Since the US
was a liberal nation, there was no option other than to
include them within the Anglo American people and to grant
them all the democratic privileges of American citizens.
Even if by law Blacks were equal citizens, they could still
be discriminated against, but after serving and sacrificing
their lives in two World Wars, Blacks developed a sense
of the fundamental rights that were basic to Anglo American
culture, and began to demand and receive equal and even
preferential treatment (affirmative action - reverse discrimination).
It is a process which took over a hundred years and which
is not yet complete, as reflected in the fact that the minority
of neighborhoods are mixed, and that Black infiltration
into a neighborhood will often promptly drive the Whites
out. Fundamental Latin American and Anglo American Characteristics
- A Comparison of - 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. Perception and Fact: Racial Genocide,
Equality, Supremacy and Hierarchy:A short synopsis of basic
facts on both halves of the American continent: 1. The Anglo
Americans developed a theory of equality, which they don't
in fact practice towards new immigrants, preferring instead
to completely assimilate them into their already existing
political, economic, and social culture. 2. Latin Americans
may declare their belief in hierarchy, but interracial and
inter-ethnic marriages are more common among Latin Americans
than among Anglo Americans. 3. The ability to establish
a government whose declared purpose is preservation of equality
and of the rights of man was based on the annihilation of
the Indians. 4. The US prospered economically because of
a culture that encouraged personal achievement and success.
5. The Anglo American's desire for success stands in contrast
to the Latin American' aspiration for respect and personal
connection. 6. Based on the previous distinction, Latin
American thinkers assert the moral supremacy of Latin Americans
over materialist Anglo Americans. 7. Autocratic aggressive
resolute government is possible and natural in a society
that is not democratic. True democracy is not practiced
in Latin America, while it is in the US. This is one possible
reason while autocratic regimes can exist in Latin America.
Another factor is their hierarchic structure that is consistent
with Catholic ideology but sharply deviates from the equality
promoted by Protestantism. 8 The main difference between
Latin and Anglo Americans is that Latin Americans will often
be personally intimate with individuals who are on a different
hierarchic level, while Anglo Americans preach absolute
equality but preserve a distance between races by encouraging
personal elitism. Paradoxically, there seems to be greater
equality among the former than among the latter.
