The Pledge of Allegiance, written by a socialist—imagine that!—, also a minister, in the later nineteenth century, declared America to be “one nation.” I am a loyal American, served in the Military Services and in a combat zone but do not believe that America is “one nation.” Come to think of it, “one” seems redundant. “Two nations”—huh?
My disbelief reflects the meaning of “nation,” which differs from that of “country,” “land,” or “state.” It applies to people sharing descent, history, traditions, culture, and language, but not necessarily a defined territory. Many peoples have both a homeland and a diaspora, and many in the diaspora retain some allegiance to the old country. Because nationality is a common basis of identity, it usually takes a generation or two for, say, American Irish to become Irish American, or American Jews, Jewish Americans. Even so, feeling for the old country in the new one endures in food, customs and rituals, parades, etc. Some major cities have a “Chinatown” or a “Little Italy.” Bostonian Irish contributed to the IRA fighting the British, and Jews, even non-Zionists, contributed specially raised funds before and after the Six-Day War, and give annually to Israel. (Passover ends, “Next Year, Jerusalem”; I have said it, but I have never meant it.)
By definition, America seems not only not a nation, but even the antithesis of one. Its peoples have come and are still coming from other countries. They differ in their descents, histories, traditions, cultures, and languages. Although immigrants have become naturalized and acculturated, distinctive differences among peoples remain. At least in the first generation or two, they tend to live in national and religious enclaves which create conditions for intergroup conflict. An attack by Irish workers, later abetted by Irish policemen, on a Jewish funeral procession in 1902 New York is but one such example. These conflicts based on nationality and religion have been supplemented by the constant conflict between races, almost always between whites and people of color or regarded as people of color, however denoted. (Irish were once thought “dark.”) But not always: in the 1990s, in Los Angeles, blacks confronted Koreans who provided better grooming services at lower prices than did black-owned businesses. To its shame, the NAACP took sides though it professes to serve the “advancement of colored people.”
Race is the major differentiator of groups and individuals, though, more generally, any differences presumably defining groups and individuals can underlie or prompt conflict. Those affirming political equality in a multicultural—really, multinational—society seem to be losing to those denying it by citing group differences as justification. These opponents of political equality necessarily affirm their superiority to others on the basis of one or more characteristics, the primary ones being race, religion, and gender (lesser, associated ones: nationality, morals, intelligence). White racists think themselves superior to all people of color; Christians think themselves superior to Jews and Muslims; men think themselves superior to women. Ardent anti-racists like Robin DiAngleo and Ibram X. Kendi play the race card in reverse by privileging what they believe to be black beliefs, feelings, or perspectives, exempting them from common standards, and excusing them from criticism—and thereby showing themselves to be racist and un-American, too.
America’s response to diversity has been bifurcated: enslavement, then segregation, of blacks and later discrimination against other peoples of color; yet a slowly developing myth about the country as a “melting pot.” Between slavery and segregation, and ethnic assimilation, America tried to keep people of color separate and to assimilate whites of different European nationalities. The ideal for whites was to be or attempt to resemble WASPS—an un-American ideal because it clearly excluded blacks. But the pot cracked. It survived during and for a few years after the Second World War, as America recognized disparate groups but promoted the “Brotherhood of Man.” This notion was schizoid: a wartime—a we-are-not-like-Hitler—recognition that many Americans retained a vestige of their pre-American national identity; and an effort to override that recognition, to unify and rally all Americans in the war effort. Later, some groups whose members descended from European countries adopted or accepted hyphenated designations for themselves, like Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans to maintain a trace of identity inherited from their nations of origin. As usual, Jews are the exception. Although Jews are suspected of and slandered for allegedly having dual allegiances, Jewish immigrants from Israel do not call themselves Israeli-Americans. In the Civil Rights Movement, blacks not only asserted their citizenship as Americans equal to other Americans under the Constitution, but also—at least, many—insisted on their separate identity as distinguished by skin color by calling themselves blacks instead of negros or on continental descent by calling themselves Afro-Americans—, in the end, the proper American stance.
Today, America’s response to its diversity parallels its historical response. Some, perhaps most, seek to adopt the position which blacks have adopted and which others are still attempting to adopt—an America as a nation of political equality defined by the Constitution, notably the Bill of Rights, which overarches identifiable nations, with integration or assimilation at the personal level allowed as a matter of choice. Others, growing in numbers and power, seek to maintain racial and religious separation, re-establish white Christian domination of others, and, by the logic internal to such bigotry and to the extent deemed by them possible, undertake ethnic confinement or cleansing.
The struggle between American diversity and white Christian nationalism redefines the terms of Lincoln’s question: whether “that nation” “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” “can long endure.” I have my doubts. The answer, if present trends of Republican manipulation of elections and other political misconduct are not soon checked, the door will swing shut and lock out democracy. Worse, the demands of domination and repression will become increasingly brutal as the numerical advantage of political egalitarians grows larger and requires greater effort to control by social supremacists. The amoral, aggressive behavior of Republicans in Congress and in supermarkets and stores is a harbinger of greater future abuses of the norms of civility and the rule of law, and of more violence. As ever, power without restraint will grow unchecked. If Republicans succeed, as their unprincipled, determined, and disciplined quest for power suggests, Democrats, often thoughtful, tolerant, and tentative, will be politically incapacitated or isolated—conditions from which, short of revolution, they will not soon emerge to save democracy.
If so, the Great Experiment will fail; America will not succeed in becoming one nation of many diverse nations embraced by a government, the first of its kind in history, struggling to ensure political equality under the law, with liberty and justice for all. Which, SCOTUS originalists, is what the Founding Fathers intended in the Bill of Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment